this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
267 points (82.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43895 readers
1043 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a pretty broad question, it really depends on what you mean by "believe in religion":
Believe that a particular holy book is literal, historical truth.
Believe in the moral teachings of a particular holy book and follow its practices.
Believe in the existence of a universal higher consciousness (God)
1 is a vocal minority, and the reasons have been sufficiently explained elsewhere in this thread.
2 is much more common, and can derive from a number of reasons. Cultural identity generally determines which holy book (and interpretation thereof) you follow, but the attraction to moral framework is deeper than cultural identity. Having a set of guidelines to inform moral behavior, and a method of alignment and focus (prayer) is very valuable.
3 is a metaphysical consideration, and pops up even in 2024 because consciousness is still a mysterious phenomenon. Every explanation leads to roughly the same conclusion: if consciousness is an emergent property of complex interconnected systems, then it stands to reason that the most complex interconnected system (the universe) is more likely than not to be conscious; if consciousness is some external force that complex systems can "tune into" like a radio, then it stands to reason that "consciousness" permeates the universe; if consciousness is something else which defies scientific description, then it stands to reason that there exists some agency to dictate the rules.
Those are, broadly, the rational explanations of consciousness of which I'm aware, and they all imply a universal consciousness of one variety or another. If you can think of another I'd love to consider it.
If you meant something else by "believe in religion", let me know.
Another big reason is reason number 4
I've met a not so inconsequential amount of people in my life that when pressed admitted, they don't believe in god, don't believe in the moral teachings, but attend a place of worship because they think there is no replacement for the interwoven community and cultural connection their place of worship provides. Many people simply like the community connection of their root culture. This is especially true in minority groups (black church, synagogue).
This is me and my family right now. Two days ago we had lunch with our pastor to discuss the design of the church's nursery and I came out as atheist and my wife came out as Buddhist. The pastor didn't challenge us on any of that and we ended talking about what drew us to social justice causes. We believe in each other and that is enough.
That's another big reason to practice for sure, but I think it's a stretch to call that belief.
None of the things by themselves fully justify "belief" in a religion yet many people claim they are without a true belief in the entire system. It's the problem with such a vague question. By a narrower definition very few people attending a place of worship are true believers. Someone can believe in god, but not really believe in the rules, and still say they are "religious". Someone can believe in the rules, but not god, and say the same. I think if you are practicing the religion to some extent then you have a right to call yourself religious if that's how you view yourself regardless of your true beliefs on god, rules, etc. Cultural impact matters more than we give it credit for.
It's very rare that you find anyone on Lemmy/Reddit that actually takes more than eight seconds to critically think about the significance of "religion," and not just immediately monkey brain into "religion is for idiots." Alas, I hoped that this particular group think would've stayed behind.
A belief is not a religion, and a religion is not a belief. Any one person can be varying degrees of "religious," and any one person can hold varying levels of belief in a higher power.
I don't have much else to add because your comment was pretty well thought-out.
This ๐๐ผ #3 ๐๐ผ