About the necessity and appeal of religion and the great masses

[finsternis]

I have been thinking about this for quite a while now: about why religion is so appealing to people.
So, I decided to read the Gospels to see what was it that attracted Christians. Well, I couldn't get far because there was one thing that really bothered me about it: heaven.

When Jesus is on the mount he says that the poor and good will get all the rewards and that the wicked wont. Ok, I get that, but there's one problem: in order for that to happen heaven has to exist. Only if heaven exist can the teachings of Jesus be good teachings, if it doesn't, then they are bad, specially since he says to give away anything that anyone asks of you (that guys asks you for you house and car? Give it to him. Someone sues you? Give it more).

Well, we know that Jesus doesn't prove that there is a Heaven, so why does people assume it?
There's actually a reason, which is a "perfect moral world". As you may know, we do not live in a perfectly moral world: good people tend to get bad things while bad people tend to have good things. However, by adding Heaven, Karma, resurrecting as a higher or lower species, etc, the world becomes a morally perfect world; now good people will have good things and bad people won't (if not in this world, then the next).

Now, that's the appeal part of the title, but what about necessity? Is religion necessary?
Well, practically, yes. But only for the great masses of the people. Remember, most people don't care about existentialism, physics, philosophy, etc. They only care about waking up, going to work, going to bar, have fun, go to sleep (or something similar). So they need a quick answer to pop out every now and then when they do ask "why am I here?" or "what is the source of goodness?" or "what is goodness?".
And that is fine with me. Remember, these people are the foundation of society, the people that don't question anything. If everyone went around questioning everything, we wouldn't have a society (think about, what if we all questioned what the government does? Or every single foundation of societies like morals?).

Ok, but what about China? China is pretty much all atheist. Well actually the state is atheist, a lot Chinese people follow Buddhism, Taoism and Chinese folk beliefs. However those religions have pretty weak definitions of what "god" is (Buddhism doesn't have one, Taoism has man-gods, and Chinese Folk changes depending on where you are in China) so we see them as atheists.
Now, there are quite an amount of atheists in China (that I know) however, in the last 20 years that amount has been going down as the the Party eases up on religion. Here's a News article about it.

But Finsternis, there are still a lot of atheist in China! What about them? Well you have to remember that even though the Chinese Party has ease off on religion, they still don't like it. So they still teach and tell people to be atheist, and most people just take this for granted (remember? They are not suppose to question government).
I used to be an atheists, so I know how does it feel to be an atheist who became atheist.
I have no idea how does it feel to be an atheist who was indoctrinated by the government or parents or was simply never told about gods. So I don't know how all those atheist in China think, but I can assure you that most of them do not understand physics, philosophy and the stuff, so they must have some quick way of answering those question so they can go back to having fun.

Anyone knows? Maybe they have a mystic belief too?

[Tankbuster]

Good topic.

I've always maintained that no advantages can be found in false beliefs, that can't also be found in true beliefs.

Now, that's the appeal part of the title, but what about necessity? Is religion necessary?
Well, practically, yes. But only for the great masses of the people. Remember, most people don't care about existentialism, physics, philosophy, etc. They only care about waking up, going to work, going to bar, have fun, go to sleep (or something similar). So they need a quick answer to pop out every now and then when they do ask "why am I here?" or "what is the source of goodness?" or "what is goodness?".

Don't ascend into the clouds on that high horse, buddy
People could handle the idea that we weren't at the center of the solar system, they could handle the fact that they've evolved from lesser life forms, they can handle the fact that the Earth will eventually be swallowed by the Sun.
So why shouldn't they be able to handle this? Many people worldwide already do. Are these people superior? I think not. I think you underestimate people tremendously.

I see these superstitions as unnecessary. Now, spiritual beliefs might have purposes (I'd argue that they do), but that is completely distinct from religion to me.

And that is fine with me. Remember, these people are the foundation of society, the people that don't question anything. If everyone went around questioning everything, we wouldn't have a society (think about, what if we all questioned what the government does? Or every single foundation of societies like morals?).

Questioning things is what democracy and freedom is about. By all means, people should question the foundations of society. I know I do.

So I don't know how all those atheist in China think, but I can assure you that most of them do not understand physics, philosophy and the stuff, so they must have some quick way of answering those question so they can go back to having fun.

First of all, why pick China? Why not Sweden? Or Norway? Or any other West-European country with a majority of atheists? The fact that these societies thrive and do perfectly fine, should tell you something.

The quick answer for most of them is "I don't know", or "I don't really think about it". Everyone is capable of using these answers, if they let go of the absolute certainty they think they should have.

[finsternis]

Don't ascend into the clouds on that high horse, buddy
People could handle the idea that we weren't at the center of the solar system, they could handle the fact that they've evolved from lesser life forms, they can handle the fact that the Earth will eventually be swallowed by the Sun.
So why shouldn't they be able to handle this? Many people worldwide already do. Are these people superior? I think not. I think you underestimate people tremendously.

I never said that they are not able to know facts that scientist and philosophers throw (the earth is round, it is not the center of the universe, we do not get sick from witch). Those things we "know". Noticed the questions I put "why are we here? what is the source of all goodness? What is goodness?" those are question that we still have no answer for. So practically, we give a definition for goodness (in the form of acts). But what if someone asks "where does it come from?". The philosopher will question, debate and think, think and think for all of his life, trying to find the answer. Do you think that society would exist if everyone did this?

Questioning things is what democracy and freedom is about. By all means, people should question the foundations of society. I know I do.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't question (question is the source of progress) all I'm saying is that I know that most people won't. Not that they don't have the right, its simply that they won't.

Ask I you again, do you really think that society would exist if everyone questioned what the government does? If that was the case, we would have a riot every time the government does something stupid. But we don't.

First of all, why pick China? Why not Sweden? Or Norway? Or any other West-European country with a majority of atheists? The fact that these societies thrive and do perfectly fine, should tell you something.

The quick answer for most of them is "I don't know", or "I don't really think about it". Everyone is capable of using these answers, if they let go of the absolute certainty they think they should have.

Because in China almost 50% of the population consider themselves irreligious. I thought it would be the best example. I don't know about Sweden or Norway, haven't looked them up yet (will do though).

But if they have that large of a population, then it is probably because they were indoctrinated or simply never told about gods, in which case it would fall in the same category of China, in which case, as I said, I don't know how an indoctrinated or never-told-about-gods atheist thinks.

As for the agnostics, I don't know. Atheist have an stable belief (no god) but agnostics are not like that, so I doubt you can be taught to be one. So I doubt you can have a large population of agnostics.

I mean its possible. It is possible for everyone to question government and philosophy and live in a society, however the society would need to separate themselves from the practical life and the philosophical life (I try to do that). Also, the government would have to be the best kind of government and pass the best laws

Notice why I say what I say? What the heck is the best type of government? And what the heck is the best laws? Hard to tell. Instead, why not tell people that our type of government if best and that our laws are best. They won't question it.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Most people need to believe, for the most part it has to be simple, concise and have a round logic so that no mistakes can be found easily. Why? because in the mean time they have to think about much more important issues work/family/friends/money/etc when a philosophical doubt assaults them they prefer to rely on their simple beliefs to move on.

[Tankbuster]

I never said that they are not able to know facts that scientist and philosophers throw (the earth is round, it is not the center of the universe, we do not get sick from witch). Those things we "know". Noticed the questions I put "why are we here? what is the source of all goodness? What is goodness?" those are question that we still have no answer for. So practically, we give a definition for goodness (in the form of acts). But what if someone asks "where does it come from?". The philosopher will question, debate and think, think and think for all of his life, trying to find the answer. Do you think that society would exist if everyone did this?

Yes, of course I do. Why wouldn't it?
The answer to these questions doesn't have to be religious. It can well be 'I don't know', which is quite an honest answer. Or they'll go into the philosophy, if they're more knowledgeable. Or they won't really think about why we are here in the first place. I know many people who don't.
If there's not a void to begin with, you don't need anything to fill it

I'm not saying that people shouldn't question (question is the source of progress) all I'm saying is that I know that most people won't. Not that they don't have the right, its simply that they won't.

That's true. But I don't think it would be a problem if they did. On the contrary.

Ask I you again, do you really think that society would exist if everyone questioned what the government does? If that was the case, we would have a riot every time the government does something stupid. But we don't.

Sure. If everyone was intelligent and questioned the use of society, they would quickly discover that it's everyone's interest that there is a society that represents their needs and makes sure that there are specific rules (in law, business, social interaction), and that the offenders against the rules are punished.
As for riots, it depends on the intensity of the stupidity of the government. If they mess up big time, we would indeed riot (which does indeed happen, look Iran); for lesser offenses, there could be demonstrations (which happen all the time), criticism in the media and press (which always happens), and the loss of their political power (which also happens). All of this happens. Intelligent people would also be able to intelligently distinguish which situations require which actions, don't you think?

What you seem be saying is that it's better for a society if most people don't have an intellectual pursuit in philosophy and ethics... That's simply not true.

Because in China almost 50% of the population consider themselves irreligious. I thought it would be the best example. I don't know about Sweden or Norway, haven't looked them up yet (will do though).

But if they have that large of a population, then it is probably because they were indoctrinated or simply never told about gods, in which case it would fall in the same category of China, in which case, as I said, I don't know how an indoctrinated or never-told-about-gods atheist thinks.

Sweden is a much better example. 80% non-religious, and many of them do of course know about Gods.
A society is perfectly able to function without religion.

As for the agnostics, I don't know. Atheist have an stable belief (no god) but agnostics are not like that, so I doubt you can be taught to be one. So I doubt you can have a large population of agnostics.

Atheists don't believe in no God. Atheists are without a belief in God.
90% of self-proclaimed agnostics I've met are simply atheists who are confused about the terminology. Agnosticism is not sitting on the fence at all, and it's not being 'unsure'.
But then again, I don't see any problem with agnostics in a society Are you suggesting that certain philosophical positions are unable to exist en masse in society?

I mean its possible. It is possible for everyone to question government and philosophy and live in a society, however the society would need to separate themselves from the practical life and the philosophical life (I try to do that). Also, the government would have to be the best kind of government and pass the best laws

Which is our goal. We continuously try to improve our society and our government. That's what constitutional changes and elections are for.
Enabling criticisement and change of the government is not just possible, but it's inherent in the constitutional law of every civilized nation.

Notice why I say what I say? What the heck is the best type of government? And what the heck is the best laws? Hard to tell. Instead, why not tell people that our type of government if best and that our laws are best. They won't question it.

First of all, you don't need religion to indoctrinate people, as China proves perfectly.
Second of all, the best types of government and the best types of law really aren't all that difficult to find out. People are intelligent enough to be able to understand why democracy is better than autocracy. They might not go into the whole philosophical depth of it all, but then again, there's nothing to step them from doing it. And nothing's going to happen if they do, accept perhaps a more active and more politically interested population: advantages, in other words.

[finsternis]

Yes, of course I do. Why wouldn't it?
The answer to these questions doesn't have to be religious. It can well be 'I don't know', which is quite an honest answer. Or they'll go into the philosophy, if they're more knowledgeable. Or they won't really think about why we are here in the first place. I know many people who don't.
If there's not a void to begin with, you don't need anything to fill it

Very well, then they just don't think about it. I'll give you that.

Sure. If everyone was intelligent and questioned the use of society, they would quickly discover that it's everyone's interest that there is a society that represents their needs and makes sure that there are specific rules (in law, business, social interaction), and that the offenders against the rules are punished.

That's the definition of society. That's not the problem, the problem is putting it to practice: what laws are good? does everyone deserve goodness? how should criminal be punished? That's where people disagree. And that's where you need the great masses of the people to simply believe a overall idea: this is good, that is bad.

As for riots, it depends on the intensity of the stupidity of the government. If they mess up big time, we would indeed riot (which does indeed happen, look Iran); for lesser offenses, there could be demonstrations (which happen all the time), criticism in the media and press (which always happens), and the loss of their political power (which also happens). All of this happens. Intelligent people would also be able to intelligently distinguish which situations require which actions, don't you think?

What you seem be saying is that it's better for a society if most people don't have an intellectual pursuit in philosophy and ethics... That's simply not true.

Practically, yes. But only the great masses. The great masses are the ones that create the wealth of society so that it can be spent on education and on giving enough free time for the philosophers, scientists, artist and politicians (and thinkers in general) so that they can think of ways to advance society.

But again, this is all practical. The reason why I say this is because we don't have ultimate knowledge and I doubt we will ever achieve it. If everyone was a thinker (whatever that means) then society wouldn't be able to run in a stable way (people would just be too confused all the time, like philosophers and scientist always are).

Sweden is a much better example. 80% non-religious, and many of them do of course know about Gods.
A society is perfectly able to function without religion.

Yeah, I gave you that. Wait, are these 80% of the people not spiritual in any way? Just because someone is non-religious that doesn't mean that they do not believe in the supernatural. They could have their own way of fixing the moral imperfectness of the world (could be something as simple as Karma).

But assuming that they are completely atheistic, do you understand why is it that religion is more appealing? Maybe it is because in China and Russia religion was oppressed, but in the west it was a more voluntary movement.

Atheists don't believe in no God. Atheists are without a belief in God.

Active atheist, passive atheist.

Are you suggesting that certain philosophical positions are unable to exist en masse in society?

Yes. Again, practically. These are all observations of how humans are and act because of our nature.

Which is our goal. We continuously try to improve our society and our government. That's what constitutional changes and elections are for.
Enabling criticisement and change of the government is not just possible, but it's inherent in the constitutional law of every civilized nation.

The beauty of democracy, right? Have you looked at its ugly side though? The reason why Socrates didn't like it? Democracy is the rule of the great masses, but the problem is that the great masses tend to be wrong. Why? Same reason the Founder of US made the electoral college: the great masses tend to be uninformed, misinformed (which is worse than uninformed) or may simply not like something because they "think" goes against their national beliefs.

Democracy is no the best type of government, it is the best "practical" government because of human nature. The best government is actually a dictatorship with a perfectly wise and good leader (like in Plato's Republic). But that's not realistic, so we pick the best realistic one, Democracy.

First of all, you don't need religion to indoctrinate people, as China proves perfectly.

I know that. You can indoctrinate people into anything you want. Look at North Korea.

Second of all, the best types of government and the best types of law really aren't all that difficult to find out. People are intelligent enough to be able to understand why democracy is better than autocracy. They might not go into the whole philosophical depth of it all, but then again, there's nothing to step them from doing it. And nothing's going to happen if they do, accept perhaps a more active and more politically interested population: advantages, in other words.

look above.

[MaximiIian]

...If that was the case, we would have a riot every time the government does something stupid. But we don't.

There's a pretty big difference between questioning x, and wigging out about x.

[MaximiIian]

Re: Sweden. The 80% figure comes from lumping the two groups that didn't say "believe in God" on the Eurobarometer religion poll: those who responded "believe there is some kind of spirit or life force" and "do not believe in any kind of god or life force"

In actuality, the number of people who are expressly non-spiritual is closer to 25%; only about 17% explicitly identify as "atheist". On the other hand, about 72% of the population belongs to the Lutheran Church of Sweden. Swedish society is quite secular; but that's not much of an indicator of religiosity among the population, since religion is seen there as more of a personal matter.

[finsternis]

that makes more sense.

[MaximiIian]

And, regarding the United States, because I know someone is going to bring it up sooner or later: the US appears to be more religious because we have higher church attendance rates compared to Western Europe. But church attendance is a crap-ass way to judge popular religiosity, so that doesn't really count. In reality we're not far out of proportion, for a country of our size; we're just big, with a high population, so the stats are just larger. When you factor in the sheer span of our rural areas, which are generally more traditional, it's not really out of the ordinary.

Another thing you have to take into account is, American religious history is one of rising and falling piety. Some years it's higher, some years it's lower. The Great Awakenings are a big example of that wave trend.
We just happen to be at the crest of that tide; it'll ebb and flow like it always has.