

The reason religion exists. - oz
http://rondam.blogspot.com/2009/04/hooked-on-god-religion-as-drug.html

======
jacoblyles
I don't disagree with the author, but I do think he underestimates the
beneficial effects of the drug to its users in that he fails to mention the
often large social benefits that one can obtain by belonging to a church,
especially in a world where contact with one's local community seems like it
is becoming less common. The IRL social network that religion provides, in
addition to its palliative effects, comprise the major sources of utility from
religious belief.

And I think it does a good job of explaining the uphill battle that
evangelical atheists have. In order to convert someone, you have to convince
them that being correct on a technical metaphysical issue is worth the real
costs that they will bear for abandoning their religion. It's not the most
appealing sales proposition.

Religion has been around for as long as humans have. I don't think it's going
anywhere anytime soon. And despite the fact that I think it's wrong, I have
serious doubts that the world would be a better place without it.

This is also the crux of the disagreement that I have with the self-proclaimed
rationalists (see the blog Less Wrong for examples). Rationalists believe that
what is true is also always beneficial, but I am not convinced that this is
necessarily so. I find it easy to imagine a world where believing some false
propositions was beneficial, and I suspect we may even live in such a world.

------
oz
As a deconvert from Christianity as of early February, I think this article
makes some good points.

If you'd like to read the testimonies of other deconverts, visit
unreasonablefaith.com, de-conversion.com and
debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com

Many of them are former pastors, missionaries and apologists. Some of their
testimonies were what helped me 'see the light'...

Interestingly, while I was a Christian, I came to the conclusion that some
genuine, sincere Christians were genuinely and sincerely delusional.
Ultimately, Christianity is responsible for forcing me to think things
through, since you have to check everything by 'the Word' (Bible)

I wonder if 'G-d' is angry with me for posting this on 'Resurrection Morning.'
Oh well. See you in hell...

~~~
nathanwdavis

      "I came to the conclusion that some genuine, sincere Christians were genuinely and sincerely delusional. "
    

Seems like this is something you could say about humans in general.

My feeling is that if religion is a drug, then atheism is as well. They are
both a belief that depends on faith.

~~~
frisco
No. People have to stop saying this. Atheism does not depend on faith. It is a
falsifiable hypothesis that fails if anyone presents repeatable, concrete
evidence that a higher power exists. After millenia of trying, the
_overwhelming_ evidence is in support of atheism. Before science, religion was
seen as an explanation for lots of things -- as science has explained more and
more, religion has been forced into increasingly smaller corners for
explicative power. Atheism doesn't take anything on faith -- that's the point.

Religion is not falsifiable, which makes it fundamentally different from
atheism.

~~~
nathanwdavis
I guess I touched a nerve there. Much of science is still theory, and theories
are a very valuable way to help explain things, but they are not 'overwhelming
evidence'. Also, this thinking that religion has been forced into a corner is
dependent upon the crowd you are a part of (crowd behavior). The opposite
crowd might have you thinking the opposite. If an atheist believes without
faith, then that means that they are completely sure of everything. Another
term for this is close-mindedness.

~~~
awad
But the point is that an atheist does not know and is not completely sure.
Religion, on the other hand, tends to sell itself as having all the answers
(except when it doesn't, then it's simply a matter of God's will). Atheists
simply can't believe that religion has all the answers, there just is not any
proof in that being the case.

~~~
Kaizyn
It sounds as if you are confusing agnosticism with atheism. The atheist
asserts that God does not exist; the theist asserts that God exists; and the
agnostic asserts that they cannot know if God exists or not.

Skepticism is healthy and good. All truth claims should be carefully examined
and only accepted if enough supporting evidence exists to satisfy you.

------
rkts
My theory:

Everyone has two brains, a "people" brain and a "stuff" brain. Most people use
them roughly equally, but some use one more than the other.

When we were kids, my sister and I used to argue because she thought that her
stuffed animals had feelings, and that birds had conversations about specific
things. She was always attributing human emotions to things that didn't have
them. Even now, she does it with her cat: if the cat trips and falls and walks
away with its head down, my sister will say, "Aww, she's embarrassed!" -- even
though cats don't understand embarrassment and the cat is probably just tired.

Unsurprisingly, my sister is religious and I'm not. Religion is what happens
when people misapply their people brain to thinking about stuff. They get a
vague sense that the world is alive, and then explain it in whatever concrete
terms their culture provides (God, in our case).

Nerdiness is what happens when people misapply their stuff brain to thinking
about people. Nerds misinterpret other people because they fail to attribute
emotions to them. However, unlike religious people, nerds usually realize at
some point that they have a problem and can try to change. Except in extreme
cases, religious people suffer no consequences for being wrong, so they have
no reason to change.

Since women tend to be more interested in people and men more interested in
stuff, this also explains why women are more often religious, and men are more
often nerds.

------
10ren
There's a wonderful theory that sees Buddhism, Christianity and Islam as
responses to changes in society brought about by new technology (IIRC)

~~~
bayareaguy
I'd love to know more about it if you could provide a reference. I'm
especially curious about how applicable it is to other religions.

~~~
10ren
Thanks, I've been trying to recall the source, but all I remember is he didn't
support his hypothesis very well. I'll post if I find it.

------
known
God != Religion

