Is there a rational reason for religion?

[ALine]

I would like to know the reasonable arguments for having a religion. The only one that I can think of is that religion causes a "faith/belief" tether to a certain true world understanding which attaches itself to certain ideals in order to reach this true world which is passed down through the ages. These ideals can be anything from basic rules and regulations which prevent others from performing certain actions on how to love your loved ones. However, if this is true then that would mean that religion would act as a "time capsule" which would have people to believe one thing while also maintaining the ideas and beliefs of certain rules and regulations.

[OldChemE]

Depends on what you mean by 'rational.'  One reason for religion:  as children, we depend on our parents for guidance and protection, to feed us, care for us and shield us from the hard parts of life.  Some people never get over that need for someone above them to provide that care and guidance-- so they turn to religion.  Personally, I don't see the need, but I believe there are those who do.

[ALine]

When I say "rational" I am wondering if there is a positive argument which can be made for religion to be kept within our world as a whole.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, OldChemE said:

 Some people never get over that need for someone above them to provide that care and guidance-- so they turn to religion.  Personally, I don't see the need, but I believe there are those who do.

Bang!! You.ve hit the nail fair square on the head.

[jfoldbar]

my opinion.

i dont think there is any rational reason for any "belief". whether its god, aliens, ghosts or bigfoot. why should one "belief" have a higher status than another, after all they are all just "beliefs".

but hey, w'ere all human and all have our little things. im sure i have a small belief in something even though i tell myself that beliefs have no purpose. and as humans if it takes a belief in something to do the right thing, or feel content or all gooey inside, then its not really a bad thing if we dont hurt others along the way.

i know christians who accept that the facts contradict their belief, but they continue to believe it just because they need a torch/light to follow. and its the only light they know, even though its not based on anything but a belief.

so i guess, for them, there is a rational reason for religion simply because they would be a blubbering mental mess if there was no religion as they  would feel to have no purpose.

so, rational depends on your state of mind and its ability to deal with life.

[Ten oz]

Religion provides a shared structure for ethical behavior. Humans live together in societies and are not loners. There are many benefits within a society to have shared perspectives toward morality, identity, history, and etc. Among secular people there is often wide disagreement regarding right vs wrong and the nature of the world. Tending to a folk is easier that wrangling a gaggle. So it is rational that those with influence in society would turn to a mechanism like Religion to help produce conformity. 

 

[Phi for All]

42 minutes ago, jfoldbar said:

my opinion.

i dont think there is any rational reason for any "belief". whether its god, aliens, ghosts or bigfoot. why should one "belief" have a higher status than another, after all they are all just "beliefs".

I disagree with this completely, since I can show that some beliefs have more basis in the natural world than others, that some beliefs can be trusted more than others. The fact that you, yourself, don't bother to distinguish between the bases for various forms of belief doesn't mean they don't exist. 

46 minutes ago, jfoldbar said:

so i guess, for them, there is a rational reason for religion simply because they would be a blubbering mental mess if there was no religion as they  would feel to have no purpose.

so, rational depends on your state of mind and its ability to deal with life.

I disagree with this also. Rational reasoning, using critical thought and the scientific method, has nothing to do with state of mind, or any other subjective measure (hopefully). I also think you're assuming nothing would fill the vacuum in a person's life if religion suddenly left it.

[John Cuthber]

"Is there a rational reason for religion?"

Do money and power count?

[MigL]

Beliefs that have a strong basis/evidence are facts, Phi.
By their very definition, beliefs are not factual..

I tend to agree with OldChemE.
Religion is like playing the lottery.
Hope against insurmountable odds.
You don't buy lottery tickets, you buy hope.

[DrP]

13 hours ago, jfoldbar said:

 

i know christians who accept that the facts contradict their belief, but they continue to believe it just because they need a torch/light to follow. and its the only light they know, even though its not based on anything but a belief.

 

They probably feel 'it's the only light they have' because they have blinkered their own view from anything else out of indoctrination and the stubbornness that comes from that.

Some, rather than actually be positive and move on with life accepting that we just do not know the answer to everything, cling to their dogma so stubbornly that it makes them miserable...  they then claim that their religion is the only thing giving them joy.  

 

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Beliefs that have a strong basis/evidence are facts, Phi.
By their very definition, beliefs are not factual..

I tend to agree with OldChemE.
Religion is like playing the lottery.
Hope against insurmountable odds.
You don't buy lottery tickets, you buy hope.

Things don't have to be correct to serve a logical purpose. Something can be both rational and silly at the same time. Humor blurs those lines constantly. What are the rational reasons for laughter? To your point about hope I think there are physiological benefits to being hopefully. 

[Phi for All]

21 hours ago, MigL said:

Beliefs that have a strong basis/evidence are facts, Phi.
By their very definition, beliefs are not factual..

Wikipedia:

Quote

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. 

It's all about the likelihood of something being true. The way you believe is also expressing the way you accept those things.

I can believe that meeting certain criteria (O2, fuel, heat) will result in a fire event, and trust that belief with an almost 100% certainty. I can believe that focusing my will on a specific spot on a piece of wood will result in a fire event, and hope that belief has a measurable possibility of being true. Or I can believe that God will make the wood burst into flames if it's His will, and believe with absolutely 100% certainty using faith.

[jfoldbar]

On 02/07/2018 at 12:15 PM, Phi for All said:

I disagree with this completely, since I can show that some beliefs have more basis in the natural world than others, that some beliefs can be trusted more than others. The fact that you, yourself, don't bother to distinguish between the bases for various forms of belief doesn't mean they don't exist. 

I disagree with this also. Rational reasoning, using critical thought and the scientific method, has nothing to do with state of mind, or any other subjective measure (hopefully). I also think you're assuming nothing would fill the vacuum in a person's life if religion suddenly left it.

could you provide an example of a belief having more basis on the natural world than others?

 

 

some people are mentally incapable of rational reasoning, critical though and scientific method. so if this inability leaves a void, they may turn beliefs.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, jfoldbar said:

could you provide an example of a belief having more basis on the natural world than others?

In the post right before yours, I gave three examples of beliefs. The first I call trust, the second hope/wishful thinking, and the third is an example of faith.

[Itoero]

I think religion was necessary to form and lead groups, which led to the forming of countries.

 

[Phi for All]

23 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I think religion was necessary to form and lead groups, which led to the forming of countries.

Demonstrably false. Groups were formed and led without reliance on the supernatural. It's not "necessary".

[Itoero]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Demonstrably false. Groups were formed and led without reliance on the supernatural. It's not "necessary".

That's very black and white. Religion is not only the belief in supernatural...

[Phi for All]

37 minutes ago, Itoero said:

That's very black and white. Religion is not only the belief in supernatural...

It's a simple concept. Some groups didn't need religion to form or lead them, so your statement about religion being necessary for that was false.

[Itoero]

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's a simple concept. Some groups didn't need religion to form or lead them, so your statement about religion being necessary for that was false.

I didn't say that only religion formed groups. There are of course other ways. But most groups where formed and led via faith.

[John Cuthber]

29 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I didn't say that only religion formed groups. There are of course other ways. But most groups where formed and led via faith.

 

What you said was that you thought it was necessary. That means that you thought groups could only be formed with religion.
 

17 hours ago, Itoero said:

I think religion was necessary to form and lead groups,

[Itoero]

39 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

What you said was that you thought it was necessary. That means that you thought groups could only be formed with religion.
 

That's true. Most groups are formed/led through a form of faith. And faith is or leads to religion...which is why I said religion was necessary

[Phi for All]

36 minutes ago, Itoero said:

That's true. Most groups are formed/led through a form of faith. And faith is or leads to religion...which is why I said religion was necessary

Which is why I pointed out that you were wrong to say so. Are we clear on this now? Do you understand that religion may have been used as you say, but that it wasn't NECESSARY to form and lead groups? Because, after all:

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

I didn't say that only religion formed groups. There are of course other ways.

 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

That's true. Most groups are formed/led through a form of faith. And faith is or leads to religion...which is why I said religion was necessary

Is this a language thing?

Do you understand that "most" is not the same as "all"?

Do you understand what necessary means?
It means it is an absolute requirement without which it can not happen.

 

[Itoero]

21 hours ago, Itoero said:

I think religion was necessary to form and lead groups, which led to the forming of countries.

 

For me, this means that the presence of religion was necessary to form groups. That, doesn't mean that the presence of religion was sufficient.

Most groups were formed through some sort of faith based belief shared by the members of the groups.

.

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

For me, this means that the presence of religion was necessary to form groups. That, doesn't mean that the presence of religion was sufficient.

I don't see how sufficiency relates to the requirement of religion in forming or leading groups that you're imposing. You're still using the word necessary, as in "fuel is necessary to start a fire". Groups can form and be led without religion, therefore religion is not a requirement, not a necessity.

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Most groups were formed through some sort of faith based belief shared by the members of the groups.

I disagree with this, too. Many groups form around concepts and leaders that experience taught them to trust, rather than accept blindly through faith. Since those groups also tended to be more successful (if not more populated), reputation increased the value of belief through trust.