Do most humans need to believe in God

[jajrussel]

Worshipping God's seems irrational. So why have people worshipped God's for thousands of years? With all the evidence that shows that human beings have done just that, and the evidence is there. Is it rational to ignore a need that humans seem to be hardwired with just because the proof is lacking? We can demand proof, but with thousands of years belief as evidence can we rationaly say that humanity does not need to believe. Leasing to do you think it is wrong for me to say that must humans need God or God's?

With all the many God's worshipped over thousands of years the only thing that seems irrational is the instance that there is only one God, which has become to the point that I couldn't even get Gboard to acknowledge that yes I meant God's plural until the third try and even then it insisted on the apostrophe s. Cause it didn't like it when I forced it to accept Gods. Maybe it is a Grammer thing, and the machine isn't really biased. 

[iNow]

Your mistake is assuming that rationality is involved. More central are faith and indoctrination. Focusing there is the.... rational... thing to do.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

Worshipping God's seems irrational. So why have people worshipped God's for thousands of years? With all the evidence that shows that human beings have done just that, and the evidence is there. Is it rational to ignore a need that humans seem to be hardwired with just because the proof is lacking? We can demand proof, but with thousands of years belief as evidence can we rationaly say that humanity does not need to believe. Leasing to do you think it is wrong for me to say that must humans need God or God's?

With all the many God's worshipped over thousands of years the only thing that seems irrational is the instance that there is only one God, which has become to the point that I couldn't even get Gboard to acknowledge that yes I meant God's plural until the third try and even then it insisted on the apostrophe s. Cause it didn't like it when I forced it to accept Gods. Maybe it is a Grammer thing, and the machine isn't really biased. 

I would say that most humans are rather put off by the finality of death as a reason. That and the need to explain the beauty and awe of the universe that surrounds him, were the seeds of such irrational beliefs in magic. Of course the need of an explanation of the beauty and awe of the universe has now mostly been explained by science, but its difficult still to dispense with irrationality that has been handed down through generations after generations. The fabricated rewards system of heaven, also gives many a nice warm inner glow of comfort.

[jajrussel]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your mistake is assuming that rationality is involved. More central are faith and indoctrination. Focusing there is the.... rational... thing to do.

Really? When studying a species don't we rationalize every little thing they do? Why they eat what they eat? Why they solve their problems the way they do? For thousands of years people have believed in an eye for an eye. Where is the faith in that? I believe that when people actually do become rational, religion will become a thing of the past. 

I'm just suggesting that after thousands of years of irrational behavior that it might be a little irrational to assume that a handful of years of enlightenment will win the day. I used to want to have faith in people, so maybe you are right about faith being irrational.

I suspect that Paul after spending his whole life doing what's necessary to be a leader in the Jewish system then suddenly finding himself no longer Cohen because if his eyes caused him to take a path where it was still acceptable for someone of his experience to lead. If his eye problems made him no longer Cohen he would likely have found being a leader among Jewish Christians just as difficult, so he needed a whole group of people who could care less about his eye problems so he created the concept of faith. It might have been one of the first recorded times that someone used rationality to argue their cause. Is it rational today? No..., But, the rational of science has only existed a handful of years compared to the thousands of years if religion.

A rational people will have to outlaw religion to make it go away. We are kind of out numbered. The Romans could have done it maybe. But through Paul Christianity became the rational choice of the time. History is history, and this section of the forum is for discussing the rationality of religion, and that is all I'm trying to do nothing more.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

I would say that most humans are rather put off by the finality of death as a reason. That and the need to explain the beauty and awe of the universe that surrounds him, were the seeds of such irrational beliefs in magic. Of course the need of an explanation of the beauty and awe of the universe has now mostly been explained by science, but its difficult still to dispense with irrationality that has been handed down through generations after generations. The fabricated rewards system of heaven, also gives many a nice warm inner glow of comfort.

I agree, accept to note that at first it was science that was thought to be irrational.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

Is it rational to ignore a need that humans seem to be hardwired with just because the proof is lacking? We can demand proof, but with thousands of years belief as evidence can we rationaly say that humanity does not need to believe.

I bolded the part I think you need to think harder about. I think this is an assumption on your part. People believed many things for thousands of years we now know to be false (the causes of illnesses, weather, natural disasters, etc). Were we hardwired to believe those things too? We don't believe them any more, so where did the hardwires go?

Look at the gaps in our knowledge that used to be filled with supernatural explanations, and see how we've learned to observe and understand how the world works. We replaced thousands of years of our ignorance with knowledge, and some understand the whole omnipotent sky father fantasy was creative imagination that developed into something else entirely. 

There could be a "proclivity towards" rather than a "need". Either way, I think religions took advantage of this proclivity to gain followers while advancing their own agendas. Emperor Constantine and Christianity are like the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party movement, in that regard. [/mixing politics and religion]

[jajrussel]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

bolded the part I think you need to think harder about.

Just coining a phrase, that is why I said "seem". I don't believe it to be true or an actual physical condition. Human beings are human beings. We have intellect yet still fall victim to irrationality. For thousands of years the majority of us haven't changed. There might be a mathematical method to predict when science will rule, but is using math to predict the future science? There may have been a little science in use even earlier, but religion was used to control for a very long time. What seems logical doesn't always win the day. Maybe it is because I lack logic skills but I've had my logical opinions handed to me on a science platter, all to good cause. All, to good cause.

I just wish I could remember all those lessons.

 

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We replaced thousands of years of our ignorance with knowledge,

And even today the church still rejects some of that knowledge, and probably still to this day resents it. I confess I had to look up the world proclivity... It's much better than saying hardwired. Thanks

[Ichthus]

2 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

And even today the church still rejects some of that knowledge, and probably still to this day resents it.

Maybe you should ask some churches about that, eh?

Gosh, good to know I have an irrational belief because I don't like the finality of death and I somehow need to explain the beauty and awe of nature! Amazing what you logical, rational people can teach me about myself!  

[beecee]

19 minutes ago, Ichthus said:

Gosh, good to know I have an irrational belief because I don't like the finality of death and I somehow need to explain the beauty and awe of nature! Amazing what you logical, rational people can teach me about myself!  

It isn't about you; It's about how the mind and need of ancient human beliefs perceived the universe without science, and the reasons they turned to unsupported myth and magic, and how sometimes such beliefs even though based on myth and superstition, is hard to let go of after being handed down generation after generation.

[jajrussel]

My bad I forgot that people of the church consider themselves to be the church, so someone might take my attempt to have a conversation about the rational of the church a little bit personal. You do realize that in this conversation I have to watch out for stones from both sides Some see absolutely no rational in the conversation.

30 minutes ago, Ichthus said:

Gosh, good to know I have an irrational belief because I don't like the finality of death and I somehow need to explain the beauty and awe of nature! Amazing what you logical, rational people can teach me about myself!

So I'm right the church still resents it

[iNow]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

I believe that when people actually do become rational, religion will become a thing of the past. 

Perhaps, but more likely is people will use their rationality and reason to find support of preconceptions. They believe first, then look for supporting evidence second.

[jajrussel]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps, but more likely is people will use their rationality and reason to find support of preconceptions. They believe first, then look for supporting evidence second.

I think the principle of faith is in the desired outcome which is generally for good. Paul is said to have written that what you know in your heart and all scripture is good for dividing the truth. His words were the rational of the day. They were accepted by thousands. It may sound irrational today, but at the time it took, and those of us who would disagree today are still outnumbered.

I read about a little island nation today that used irrational reasoning to take some of the shine off of religion. If that kind of irrational reasoning keeps on what is seen as the shakles of indoctrination will fall away from within. Kingdoms rise up, kingdoms fall. History seems to work that way.

[iNow]

Faith is perhaps one of the single worst reasons to accept something as true.

[jajrussel]

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

Faith is perhaps one of the single worst reasons to accept something as true.

Agreed, but what does humanity offer?  I live in a place where it seems the financial needs of a few outweigh the needs of the many. Society could easily replace the need for any religion by filling the needs that some of the religions do manage to meet. But it is not economically feasible. Better to let God worry about the poor and homeless. All you have to do is look around to see how good a job he is doing. With preachers owning mansions because they claim to be worth it, and what the hell they didn't steal it, and besides they do spend it... On themselves, and that is good for the economy... While our politicians talk about what they want to do, but never do. Because politics is so fickle that only the losers expect the winner to keep their campaign promises, and what the hey until they actually win they don't ever have to worry about their own promises, because, well, they lost, so beating down the winner is so much more important than introducing bills that would help people.

Sorry, inow I am not ranting at you, but I am ranting, so I will stop now. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by jajrussel

[studiot]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Faith is perhaps one of the single worst reasons to accept something as true.

Short, sweet, and too the point +1

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Really? When studying a species don't we rationalize every little thing they do? Why they eat what they eat? Why they solve their problems the way they do? For thousands of years people have believed in an eye for an eye. Where is the faith in that? I believe that when people actually do become rational, religion will become a thing of the past. 

I think you are missing something vital in dividing thought processes into rational and irrational.

Neither of these are complete without some sort of target/goal/motivational thought.

Goals and goal setting is also part of the picture, it is neither rational nor irrational to have goals, but without them, nothing would be achieved because both rational and irrational processes are types of means to approach those goals.

For instance in your example, hunger is a motivator. Moving to better grazing, catching prey or scavenging are all rational processes to allay that hunger.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

I would say that most humans are rather put off by the finality of death as a reason. That and the need to explain the beauty and awe of the universe that surrounds him, were the seeds of such irrational beliefs in magic. Of course the need of an explanation of the beauty and awe of the universe has now mostly been explained by science, but its difficult still to dispense with irrationality that has been handed down through generations after generations. The fabricated rewards system of heaven, also gives many a nice warm inner glow of comfort.

beecee's examples are motivators - neither rational nor irrational.

 

[jajrussel]

47 minutes ago, studiot said:

Short, sweet, and too the point +1

(I think you are missing something vital in dividing thought processes into rational and irrational.

Neither of these are complete without some sort of target/goal/motivational thought.

Goals and goal setting is also part of the picture, it is neither rational nor irrational to have goals, but without them, nothing would be achieved because both rational and irrational processes are types of means to approach those goals.

For instance in your example, hunger is a motivator. Moving to better grazing, catching prey or scavenging are all rational processes to allay that hunger.

beecee's examples are motivators - neither rational nor irrational.)

 

Okay, I stopped being rational when I started ranting. I stepped outside my own goal, by allowing passion to become my motivation, which is what religionist do  ..

Edited March 28, 2019 by jajrussel
I added the parentheses so you wouldn't think I thought the+1 was for me...

[OldChemE]

6 hours ago, jajrussel said:

So why have people worshipped God's for thousands of years?

Early man was essentially powerless in nature.  He could hunt and forage for food, build shelter and care for a family, but he and his family were largely at the mercy of the natural elements.  Having the intelligence to be dissatisfied with this situation, man began to wish for something better and to visualize beings who had power over the elements and did not have human limitations.  This is the origin of Gods.  Thus, early gods tended to reflect the needs of mankind:  Gods of the hunt, the harvest, and of all things good in life.

 

As mankind grew and developed into larger tribes and had territorial conflicts, the Gods of battle and war emerged-- because a warrior who could win was what mankind needed.

 

As man recognized the limitations if death and yearned for more life, gods became immortal.

 

When civilizations developed and mankind had a better lot in life, such as early Grecian and Roman societies, mankind yearned for pleasures that the moral standards of society tended to limit, and the immortal gods emerged that had to power to have limitless love affairs and debauchery.

 

In simple terms, our Gods have always tended to represent the things we wish we could have in life but cannot always have due to our human limitations.

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, OldChemE said:

Early man was essentially powerless in nature.  He could hunt and forage for food, build shelter and care for a family, but he and his family were largely at the mercy of the natural elements.  Having the intelligence to be dissatisfied with this situation, man began to wish for something better and to visualize beings who had power over the elements and did not have human limitations.  This is the origin of Gods.  Thus, early gods tended to reflect the needs of mankind:  Gods of the hunt, the harvest, and of all things good in life.

 

 

 

As mankind grew and developed into larger tribes and had territorial conflicts, the Gods of battle and war emerged-- because a warrior who could win was what mankind needed.

 

 

 

As man recognized the limitations if death and yearned for more life, gods became immortal.

 

 

 

When civilizations developed and mankind had a better lot in life, such as early Grecian and Roman societies, mankind yearned for pleasures that the moral standards of society tended to limit, and the immortal gods emerged that had to power to have limitless love affairs and debauchery.

 

 

 

In simple terms, our Gods have always tended to represent the things we wish we could have in life but cannot always have due to our human limitations.

 

Not sure where to start with the above...It all makes so much sense!   In other words the invention of myth, magic, and such, to explain the awe and mystery from the inner most minds to the outer limits! https://vimeo.com/275154460  

 

[swansont]

15 hours ago, jajrussel said:

And even today the church still rejects some of that knowledge, and probably still to this day resents it. I confess I had to look up the world proclivity... It's much better than saying hardwired. Thanks

!

Moderator Note

You OP was not about “the church” so let’s steer this back on-topic.

 

[Ten oz]

17 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Really? When studying a species don't we rationalize every little thing they do? Why they eat what they eat? Why they solve their problems the way they do? For thousands of years people have believed in an eye for an eye. Where is the faith in that? I believe that when people actually do become rational, religion will become a thing of the past. 

I'm just suggesting that after thousands of years of irrational behavior that it might be a little irrational to assume that a handful of years of enlightenment will win the day. I used to want to have faith in people, so maybe you are right about faith being irrational.

There is a difference between identifying a behavior and passing judgement on behavior. Science studies lots of direct things animals do but seldom from the perspective of certain behaviors being rational, good, bad, or whatever. Every trait every species has isn't useful and evolution isn't purposeful. 

After thousands of years humans still murder, commit suicide, and etc. That doesn't mean murder or suicide is rational. Most kids hate learning to read. The consistency of that among children doesn't mean humans are hardwired not to read. Correlation does not imply causation.

17 hours ago, jajrussel said:

I agree, accept to note that at first it was science that was thought to be irrational.

Rational is relative. Men having several wives and public executions were once considered rational.  

For those who find community and comfort in religion their beliefs are rational relative to the positive impact within their own lives. Irrationality in my opinion only exists when it is expressed. Thoughts, emotions, fears, wants, beliefs, and etc are never irrational. It is the choices people make based on their feelings that can be deemed irrational. 

 

[jajrussel]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You OP was not about “the church” so let’s steer this back on-topic.

 

Your right I transsistioned without even thinking about. I meant and should have said religions. I will have to learn to talk about that time period using generalities so that no one group might take offense. I can see why my attempt at humor might have been taken the wrong way. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Every trait every species has isn't useful and evolution isn't purposeful

Ah, I can see why the term hard wired might be considered a bad choice of words now. I had not thought of it that way.

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Science studies lots of direct things animals do but seldom from the perspective of certain behaviors being rational, good, bad, or whatever. Every trait every species has isn't useful and evolution isn't purposeful. 

 

I think this one is, confirmation bias is good for hunting and survival, it has side effects though.

Quote

Do most humans need to believe in God

no, but who doesnt have a lucky pair of pants?  

[jajrussel]

After thinking about it in not sure your objection to the term hardwired is fair, because I'm fairly certain that you know I didn't mean it in the the ways of the objection. Still, I can see why someone might not like the term when talking about human beings and the question as I originally asked it.

There are primates that display characteristics that are completely different than the character of other primates that is distinct to their species. Is it something they learn from the family? 

If you raised some of them separately then combine them at a later date to others or their species also raised separately would those distinct characteristics emerge?

If I raise from the egg ducks while also raising from the egg chickens then release them in a large enough domain with a small pool so each can avoid the other won't the ducks act like ducks while the chickens act like chickens would it be alright to refer to those characteristics as hard wired?

Thousands of years is a long time for the belief of God's to just simply be passed from family to child through imitation over such a wide diverse area as Earth. Yes not everyone believes in Gods, but the diversity of nature should allow that some of us don't believe.

Proclivity is still a good word, but still points to the reason why I originally asked the question, and might point better to the desire to build pyramids rather than what appears to be a distinct human character. The belief in Gods.

[iNow]

Jajrussel - You might enjoy this video. The talk covers many of the same themes you’re touching upon and digs deeper below the surface on which you’re currently scratching:

 

 

[jajrussel]

Thank you for offering the video I'm going to watch it

Note I looked up some examples of the term hardwired that at a glance seem to fit my original question by example of use.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140417191620.htm

 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180918090849.htm

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170221101016.htm

 

An excellent video, once again thank..

Edited March 30, 2019 by jajrussel

[Eric H]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 4:55 PM, jajrussel said:

Worshipping God's seems irrational.

Either, there is at least one god who created the universe and life or there is no god at all. You could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the toss of a coin; you cannot have a maybe or probable creator god.

For the universe to exist today; either something had to have no beginning, or something did not come from anything.