And I agree. We are a naturally curious species.
I don't understand this. People have this idea that religion, the idea of a god, is an easy answer.
This can't be further from the truth. Any critical thought applied to the ideas of a god immediately creates even MORE questions, ones about which hundreds of books have been written, and yet if a child asks his pastor "Who made God" the pastor's response, be it "He always was" or be it "He made himself", more questions arise about not only the integrity of the applied logic, but also to the idea of God itself.
If the idea of God was an easy one, I think we would have made at least a LITTLE progress with it.
Then I will understand what I meant. Imagine that you are very far north, and see northern polar lights, something we didn't fully figure out until 2008. Obviously, many people through time have wondered what this light is. To me, it seems like a much 'easier' answer to say that the lights are dancing ancestors, without any form of backing knowledge or investigation, than it is to actually figure out what the lights are, developing theories, sending up satellites etc.
In that way, religion is easy, the easy way out. Instead of working hard to figure out what you don't understand, you can come up with an explanation that suits you, or, in some religions, simply say that it is divine and beyond your comprehension, and thus stop pursuing knowledge in the matter.
I will agree that religion might help a few people. However, I feel that it does far more harm in general than good.
I'll use Christianity as my example, since I know it best.
I think everyone will agree that the Old Testament is filled with inaccuracies.
"But wait, we don't believe in a LITERAL interpretation of Genesis, it's more of a poem about Creation."
Okay, you may think that, and I won't deny that you do. But not everyone has the same view. Some people think that it SHOULD be taken literally, and why shouldn't they? After all, it tells them it's the inspired word of God. Just as well, imagine a priest explaining to his congregation that Genesis is just a "poem about creation."
One might "know" that it's not meant to be taken literally, but someone else will also "know" that it IS meant to be taken literally.
This is all relevant to the discussion because people are supposed to get their morals from the Bible, but by what criteria does one pick and choose those morals?
BTW, this isn't directed at you, Alive, these are just questions that your post gave rise to.
Well, here I generally agree with you, I don't think organized religion does the world much good. Individual spirituality, however, can be good in many ways. Here comes a cute little story: I once asked why grandmother whether she believed in God or not. She said she didn't belong to any organized religion, but that when she dies, it would never suck not to see her grand children again, and therefore chose to believe in something. In this sense, her personal "religion" isn't harmful in at all. Quite on the contrary, it comforts her.
As 2-D said earlier, religion is not a need, it's a want. This should be obvious, and can be based on empirical knowledge, because we can all see that people can survive, whether they are religious or not. That is why we need to define what type of
need we are talking about. Religion does not fall into the category of what we need to survive, but it can absolutely fall into the category of what many people need to
enjoy life.
