Why do people cling to outdated religions?

[Baltar]

Humans are very intelligent -- just look at what we've accomplished in terms of scientific, technological and medical advances. Yet most of the world is still stuck with religions that are either hundreds or thousands of years old, written by people who thought that the sun revolved around the earth. When a physicist comes up with a more accurate formula to describe the universe, it eventually replaces the old one. For instance Newton's laws were the best thing we had until Einstein came up with something much more accurate. Imagine if nobody was allowed to question the validity of Newton's laws. We'd never have the theory of relativity!

It's technically understandable why religions stay the way they are. Scientific laws aren't written with a clause that says "thou shalt not question these laws and statements" or "those who question these laws and statements shall be put to death". Yet most religions were written exactly like that. So there's very little wiggle room for them to adapt to human advances (the Catholic Church for instance fought very hard against the idea that the earth revolves around the sun). I suppose if the religious texts were open to revision then the religions would lose some or most of their power, but personally I'd rather live a conscious life than one constrained by beliefs people had 2,000 years ago.

So why do people still cling to these religions? Is it simply conditioning, tradition, fear? Will we eventually see a fall of religion as we know it? I have nothing against spirituality, belief in higher power, etc. But these are all possible without all the negatives that come with today's mainstream religions.

[Dating Specialist]

Religion is about faith. For me, my religion has taught me many lessons in life through the three pillars of hope, faith and love.

It's about a philosophy of life too. I have greatly benefitted after going into my Catholic faith to become a much better person. It certainly helps in my profession too, as it's all about love.

[Christian223]

Science allways advances as you say, it still has a long way to go, remember that it also updates and changes itself, old beliefs replaced by new ones, new instruments allow to see new things that make old beliefs out-dated, there may not be written rules about science, but there is a un-written rule about it that says "science is the only truth" dont you think?, for me its just another religion where the god is science itself.

For one to judge what is positive and negative one must have a specific point of view, so there is not definitive good and bad in the world, unless there is a superior entity that decides and stablishes it, in my case i choose Jesus, other choose science... im not saying that science is allways wrong, but it is when it says that god doesnt exist... at least thats what my faith tells me.

[placebo]

Jesus was just one great man two thousands years ago. There were no internet and informations couldn't spread like today can. I believe that today many people are like Jesus, they are helping others but they willl never reach his glory.
Look Steve for example, he is great man, maybe if he was born thousands years ago we'd never hear a thing about Jesus. Who knows. But IMHO Steve is better role model to me than some guy who said i can't have sex till i get married.

[Adam]

im not saying that science is allways wrong, but it is when it says that god doesnt exist... at least thats what my faith tells me.

I feel compelled to debate this point. Science, as an organized discipline with the scientific method defining theory, proof, and hypothesis and all, was created to describe god, specifically the Christian God. The roots of formal science as we know it today sprang up during the Renaisance, even several centuries before, in the 1200's, inside of firmly Christian cultures.

The overall Christian culture was the only "cultural matrix" (fancy way of saying belief system held across cultures) capable of pushing scientific principles out of pure mysticism and random attempts at trial and error. If we are to look at Science and Christianity as being seperate, it is only because one side has forgotten its roots while insisting that proof come before a theory can be believed, and the other requires that faith (belief in a theory) must come before proof is provided.

Physics was one of the first scientific disciplines created by Christian doctrine. When looked at in this context, it really isn't surprising to find that a higher percentage of physicists are religious than people who study the most recent disciplines, such as psychiatry. The Christian doctrine which lead to Physics is that God created the Universe, and the Universe will also end. When we pair that up with the commandment that there shall be no other gods before Jehova, where we find that stars, planets, the sun, etc., are not devine beings, we can begin to apply the laws on earth to objects in the heavens as well, such as the laws of motion. Believing that stars exist as giant nuclear furnaces billions of miles away, that planets are moved by gravity and inertia, and any of the other findings of astro-physicists does not go against Christian doctrine. In fact, many physicists believe that God created the laws of natural motion, which allowed stable orbits without the use of constant devine intervention.

Even for an infinite being, if you create a system which allows you to expend little energy in order to make great changes (Jupiter's orbit is decaying by 100 meters per orbit... that will probably make a major change when it eventually nears the Earth's orbit), you will have increased in power. From a theistic point of view, the laws of physics show how God's powers are infinite, not how they're limited.

As far as scientists who claim to have proof that gods do not exist, their peers are the first to jump up and denounce them. Experienced scientists know that they can neither prove nor disprove a deity, and any argument that sways to either side has fundamental flaws in logic. Science has never and will never say that God does not exist, (nor will it say that God does exist) because Science can only answer how, and is never able to answer why.

As far as Religious doctrine being unchanging, that seems to assume that the Renaisance didn't happen, and that Martin Luther never nailed his protests to a church's door. Yes, he was persecuted, as were many other people who broke away from their respective churches, but they made changes none-the-less. Wicca and other revivalistic pagan religions are very recent, with Wicca's roots dating back only 60 years, and many others appearing shortly before or shortly after. One of the revolutionary ideas that they bring to the table is decentralized authority, where no congregation answers to any other congregation, or any other heirarchal structure. Whether this is a good thing or not will just have to be seen as time goes on.

[Markus74]

The Secret is also all about Faith. It's a sort of new-age religion.

[Nneka]

Religions and physical places of worship provide a framework for exploring your spirituality. Regardless of what you are told from the pulpit, you are free to use your text, your framework, your peers, and your own discernment to figure out what is true for you.

Also, there are religions that started in the last couple hundred years that have more flexible frameworks than religions of thousands of years.

You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. You can use your religion and its practices to discover the God of your being. There is good in everyone of them. It's up to you to figure out what's right for you.

[fourthdan]

@Baltar

Baltar, I think you're a relatively intelligent and free thinking person, but probably need to do a little more research on religion. I follow hinduism, which is probably the oldest religion in the world.
And I can tell you that our religion:
-- gives guidelines, not absolute rules
-- says that everything should be questionable, and not just allows - but encourages questioning and searching for knowledge
-- allows for change depending on the times

I know where you're coming from. Most people just follow religion based on second hand knowledge... without thinking. It's almost ignorance
there are two kinds of people who result as the wrong way of following religion.
-- The first are the kind who have never read anything about religion, but just do what thier moms and dads have told them to do and are following what has become something that has been diluted over years into a sequence of traditions and chantings
-- the second kind are the people who are not able to be convinced by this. who think that that is all there is to religion, and give up on it. Instead of finding out more about religion, they believe they know all that needs to be seen, and become athiests.... or some rare people (once in a few hundred years) make a new religion that does not have the things they disliked in the religion they saw around them.


If this has been covered in the previous posts I shall re-iterate it here:
1)religion allows people to surrender thier worries, thier problems to a higher power. From a psychological point of view it allows them to accept that they are not in control of everything in thier life, and that things go unplanned (because it is part of a divine and higher plan - or because of thier past karma)
It allows them to pray - which is a sort of intention manifestation
2) if you look at religion from an anthropoligical point of view, it makes a great deal of sense too. Humans, along our history needed guidelines. guidelines at the personal level and at society's level.
religion was what helped us become civilised and organised
it was the first thing that achieved a sense of morality - a sense of right and wrong in the official way. even before Law and the police were established
3) I can say this about hinduism (and others can probably vouch for thier religions too):
Everything had a reason. those belief systems were formed over tens of thousands of years. If you dig deep enough you'll find a logical reason that we sometimes even have scientific evidence for.
(Hindu scriptures have details of everything from supernova stages and universe age and area to secrets on unlocking higher brain functions)


I'm not even gonna go into "because you feel God in your heart" part. But religion at it's most dumbed down is something that enables us to be better people. it's the oldest and most tried and true PD system known to man.

[AndyMartin]

Baltar--

There's a fundamental problem with your question in that you are asking a question ("Why do people cling to belief systems?") and an assertion ("Religion is an outdated construct.") at once, so you're getting more responses to your assertion than to your question. Furthermore, with this assertion, you attempt to place your belief above scrutiny by excluding it from the question, when in reality dismissing religion is also a belief system that is subject to the same validity claims.

That said, I think what you're really trying to ask is why people cling to the anachronistic structures, observances and proclamations of various religions. A true spiritual practice is very different from the external aspects of any religion it may be associated with.

So the real question as I see it is, "Why do people cling to belief systems as opposed to conducting an inward practice?"

And that question is very easily answered. Fear. A belief system is a warm blanket against the fears that ego raises when faced with the unanswered questions of an infinite universe of which we can only empirically describe a finite portion. A true practice involves opening your eyes to the stark, mind-bending reality of existing among unknowns and infinites. It's challenging to the core, it requires a high level of consciousness, it requires an unwavering determination to understand and accept whatever the universe throws at you realizing that it might well pull the rug out from under your beliefs at any moment.

Not many people have the stomach for that; it is far more rewarding than most people can bring themselves to believe they deserve.

[Nicketas]

One-word reasons:

power

security (shield/guard against fears)

escape from responsibility (you can blame outside forces or the evils of the world/other people instead of yourself)

easy answers

built-in leadership (so you don't have to bother with becoming a leader yourself)

it fulfills a need somehow.


I still think some faiths/beliefs are a good thing, but dogma is not....

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Christian223

Science allways advances as you say, it still has a long way to go, remember that it also updates and changes itself, old beliefs replaced by new ones, new instruments allow to see new things that make old beliefs out-dated, there may not be written rules about science, but there is a un-written rule about it that says "science is the only truth" dont you think?, for me its just another religion where the god is science itself.

Yep, that's what I said -- science is constantly evolving, and as we make new discoveries the old beliefs and laws are replaced by new ones. But in religion, the same texts (some of which were written thousands of years ago) are still being used. Certainly they contain some wisdom but they also contain a lot of outdated information, laws that are incompatible with modern civilization (stoning people do death if they don't share your religion?! ), and beliefs based on a very outdated understanding of the universe. As a result, most people who consider themselves religious follow the rules set in the religious texts very loosely.

Originally Posted by AndyMartin

There's a fundamental problem with your question in that you are asking a question ("Why do people cling to belief systems?") and an assertion ("Religion is an outdated construct.") at once, so you're getting more responses to your assertion than to your question. Furthermore, with this assertion, you attempt to place your belief above scrutiny by excluding it from the question, when in reality dismissing religion is also a belief system that is subject to the same validity claims.

I didn't think about it that way but now that you mention it I think you're right. I mean, in a way I said that the religions are based on outdated material, but it's also not possible to create new modern equivalents today (although I think some people have tried) so they would have to simply dissolve. That's a tough cookie. Well I can certainly understand that religion isn't going anywhere any time soon. The only way things will get better then is if the people of the world raise their awareness levels to a point where they can be spiritual without needing organized religion as it exists today. That pretty much answers my question then.

Originally Posted by fourthdan

Baltar, I think you're a relatively intelligent and free thinking person, but probably need to do a little more research on religion. I follow hinduism, which is probably the oldest religion in the world.

You're right, what I wrote was pretty much about western religions. I should've been more specific about that. I've actually been very intrigued by eastern religions, Buddhism in particular but haven't done much research about them yet. Personally I don't subscribe to any religion and I doubt I ever will become a permanent member of a religion in my lifetime. I've already been an atheist for a while, but now I keep an open mind and maintain the belief that anything is possible. I was inspired by Steve's blog entry about taking the best pieces from every belief system rather than staying rigidly within a single system, and I find this very empowering.

[fourthdan]

Originally Posted by AndyMartin

That said, I think what you're really trying to ask is why people cling to the anachronistic structures, observances and proclamations of various religions. A true spiritual practice is very different from the external aspects of any religion it may be associated with.

So the real question as I see it is, "Why do people cling to belief systems as opposed to conducting an inward practice?"

Absolutely Brilliant deduction, Andy.

Someone mentioned stoning of people to death - it's still carried out in some islamic parts of the world (along with honour crimes such as gang rape of women related to the "criminal", or punishment such as amputation, beheading on the "criminal" itself) And other religions have thier closets too - hinduism has had to be associated with sati (burning the widow live on the dead husband's pyre), untouchability of lower caste people, dowry (which led to female infanticide) and I can sadly go on and on.
These are the extreme forms of how people who have interpret religion - or added thier own rules and regulations to a religion.

Anyways, my take on Andy's version of Baltar's question is:
80% of people do not have it in themselves to undertake a spiritual journey on thier own. Just like today 80% of people don't bother about PD. They'd rather go with whatever the masses are doing to conform, or because they are too lazy or pre-occupied to find out on thier own.
It's the nature of the masses that have caused religion to take this path.

Originally Posted by AndyMartin

Not many people have the stomach for that; it is far more rewarding than most people can bring themselves to believe they deserve.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Baltar

Yep, that's what I said -- science is constantly evolving, and as we make new discoveries the old beliefs and laws are replaced by new ones. But in religion, the same texts (some of which were written thousands of years ago) are still being used. Certainly they contain some wisdom but they also contain a lot of outdated information, laws that are incompatible with modern civilization (stoning people do death if they don't share your religion?! ), and beliefs based on a very outdated understanding of the universe. As a result, most people who consider themselves religious follow the rules set in the religious texts very loosely.

That not realy the case, the religious people change their interpretation of the text.
I think that most Muslims in this forum wouldn't think that "Stoning people do death if they don't share your religion" is the right thing to do.

On the other hand their are also a lot of people who would tell you they believe in science, that believe that Newtons laws describe the universe perfectly.

I didn't think about it that way but now that you mention it I think you're right. I mean, in a way I said that the religions are based on outdated material, but it's also not possible to create new modern equivalents today

Their are a lot of New Age belief systems that are very modern. Sciencetology is also a modern religion.

[stephencp]

The same thing happens with science too. We've been making incremental improvements to the car, the airplane, the motor, the generator, etc but they look and act pretty much the same because students are taught "the way things work" in school instead of examining things fresh. Most E.E. majors have never heard of Tesla (I wish I knew where I read that....) but we need more people like the relatively "unqualified" Wright brothers ect who can truly examine something and innovate in all fields of knowledge.


Stephen
Power-Book Library: Free personal development, success, inspiration and motivational classics
Personality and Growth Bookshelf
Snappy Shop - Download what you need right now, instant shopping

[Nicketas]

Also consider the science and religion both fulfill different needs.

Science asks "how"

Religion asks "why"

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by stephencp

Most E.E. majors have never heard of Tesla (I wish I knew where I read that....)

I wouldn't think that this is the case. The may not know the full biography of Tesla, but they will neverless have heard something about him. Even in my physic class at high school I learned something about Tesla.

You should also keep in mind that the enginering people are not realy trained in the scientific method. They are trained to build things that work.
Engering makes technology not science.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I wouldn't think that this is the case. The may not know the full biography of Tesla, but they will neverless have heard something about him. Even in my physic class at high school I learned something about Tesla.

Considering the tesla is an SI unit for magnetic flux, E.E. majors who don't know, at the very least, the word probably shouldn't have graduated.

Originally Posted by Nicketas

Also consider the science and religion both fulfill different needs.

Science asks "how"

Religion asks "why"

This is Einstein's answer, though you notice Einstein's perspective on religion is decidedly unfavorable.

One notable problem I've discovered is that many people will make a religion out of science. Such people make it extraordinarily difficult to convince religious persons that science is not out to get them. I prefer to make a science out of religion; I've noticed that religious and non-religious people are equally wary of this.

Science is characterized by skepticism; religion by certainty. You cannot be certain if you doubt, and you cannot doubt if you are certain. But if it were that simple, we would have resolved our differences by now. Instead, we have annoying bits like Sir Isaac Newton, the case of Discovery (of Planetary Motion) via Faith, and Doubting Thomas, the case of Faith (in the Resurrection) via Discovery.

We are certain of many things, but we shouldn't be. Atheists like to reference airplanes and computers and such as examples of the triumph of science. Theists like to reference the same as examples of faith.

Science is the discovery of predictability, yes, but more accurately, it's the practice of declaring, "I'm not wrong yet." A scientist can never be certain; the data can always match a different theory.

Airplanes fly, yes, but will they always? Computers function, yes, but will they always? Nothing, not even these, should be taken for granted. I'm not suggesting you be afraid of them; of course not. But don't make it a matter of faith, either. Know. And doubt.

[Jeff Lilly]

Personally, I view a religion -- any religion -- as a practice, not a body of knowledge. This is the same as the difference between the scientific method and a particular scientific theory. And I'd rather use a practice that has been tried and refined for millenia than something someone dreamed up a couple of hundred years ago.

[fourthdan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lilly

Personally, I view a religion -- any religion -- as a practice, not a body of knowledge. This is the same as the difference between the scientific method and a particular scientific theory. And I'd rather use a practice that has been tried and refined for millenia than something someone dreamed up a couple of hundred years ago.

I disagree. some Religions (particularily eastern ones) have a huge body of knowledge associated with it. hinduism has 80,000 scriptures that talks about everything from conduct in society to the age of the universe.

[AndyMartin]

Well if you're interested in a pretty mind-blowing take on science and spirituality, check out Brian Swimme. I'm going to write about this in my blog sometime soon because I find it absolutely fascinating. He's a hard scientist -- his PhD is in gravitational dynamics -- and his focus of study is the evolution of the universe -- meaning, exploring the evolutionary process from big bang to self-aware consciousness. He's got a few short vids up at Global MindShift.

[Michael Chui]

If you guys want to go that route, take a look at the fiction work of Dante's Equation, by Jane Jensen. Good book. The central premise is a physical law of good and evil.