Religion as a coping mechanism

[Koroviev]

<rant>

I was reading through some of the posts from this morning when it really started to hit me just how much of a coping mechanism religion is. If you think about it because of religion you can get away with anything, up to and including murder, whether you've actually made amends with the party you've actually wronged or not. As long as you apologize to Jesus he will forgive you no matter who else you've actually wronged. 

 

This is especially true for parents. For me personally my dad did a lot of really awful and stupid things when I was growing up, but all he had to do was go to church the next Sunday, put on a good face, eat some bread, drink some wine, and all was forgiven and forgotten. Not only that but he was magically transformed into a moral person, and if we disagreed or didn't want to go to church and give thanks for all of the "great things" we were given when an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being was allowing these things to happen, we were immoral. On top of all of that if anyone even hinted at anything being wrong we were automatically punished and threatened with everlasting hell-fires because they had been forgiven for their sins, and "if Jesus could forgive the whole world for their sins we could forgive one person for their mistakes." 

 

I mean what kind of screwed up system gives the immoral people rewards and piece of mind while at the same time punishing those who have been wronged. As long as you give yourself to Jesus all of your sins will be forgiven.

</rant> 

[Will Torbald]

 

“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.”

― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

 

The very same kind of system created by immoral people themselves, Koroviev.

[Alan C.]

Religion provides comfort, a sense of meaning and purpose in life, a refuge in which to hide from reality, and a means to connect with others superficially. It's also a way for people to rationalize morally reprehensible behavior.

[Mister Mister]

I worked with a Puerto Rican guy briefly, and was quite shocked when he told me that he used to be a cocaine dealer, and had beaten and tortured people to get money they owed him.  But he had confessed his sins before the Catholic Church and told me Jesus had forgiven him.  I wanted to ask "were you also forgiven by the people you harmed?" but I didn't.  But I think you are right, I've heard many people with stories like this, which leads me to believe that religions like Christianity, among other things, serve as an emotional coping drug for abusers.  In fact, one of the biggest objections to Jesus' gospel is "turn the other cheek", which basically says, offer yourself up for more and more abuse, again and again.  No thank you.

[Donnadogsoth]

<rant>

I was reading through some of the posts from this morning when it really started to hit me just how much of a coping mechanism religion is. If you think about it because of religion you can get away with anything, up to and including murder, whether you've actually made amends with the party you've actually wronged or not. As long as you apologize to Jesus he will forgive you no matter who else you've actually wronged. 

 

This is especially true for parents. For me personally my dad did a lot of really awful and stupid things when I was growing up, but all he had to do was go to church the next Sunday, put on a good face, eat some bread, drink some wine, and all was forgiven and forgotten. Not only that but he was magically transformed into a moral person, and if we disagreed or didn't want to go to church and give thanks for all of the "great things" we were given when an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being was allowing these things to happen, we were immoral. On top of all of that if anyone even hinted at anything being wrong we were automatically punished and threatened with everlasting hell-fires because they had been forgiven for their sins, and "if Jesus could forgive the whole world for their sins we could forgive one person for their mistakes." 

 

I mean what kind of screwed up system gives the immoral people rewards and piece of mind while at the same time punishing those who have been wronged. As long as you give yourself to Jesus all of your sins will be forgiven.

</rant> 

 

First, you're describing the grave sin of presumption.  Committing a sin presuming God will forgive you is worse than the sin itself.

 

Second, you're ignoring Purgatory.  You don't "get away with it" in Catholicism.  Every penny is to be repaid either in this life or in Purgatory.

 

The fact that many people act presumptuously, isn't the Church's fault.  The fact that  most people aren't even aware of Purgatory or the nature of the sins such as presumption, is.

[dsayers]

Let's not forget that very view people "find" religion. Most of them have it inflicted upon them as a child, before they're able to mount a counter-argument in their own mind. It's primary use is control. So these are almost entirely abused people. Which I think is important to keep in mind because I think it helps explain why they would continue to hold onto it later in life (beyond not thinking to question it since it was presented as a given during the formative years). Namely that it provides an escape from their abuse. A parental figure to take the place of the ones they never got. A community to share in the suffering without having to process it since that community focuses on superstition instead of themselves and each other.

 

I too am victim of parents that didn't feel thy had to control themselves because no matter what they did, all they had to do was tell some unaffected 3rd person that they were sorry.

 

The fact that many people act presumptuously, isn't the Church's fault.

By pointing to a concept (Church), you're failing to hold the human beings who made voluntary choices accountable.

[Will Torbald]

First, you're describing the grave sin of presumption.  Committing a sin presuming God will forgive you is worse than the sin itself.

 

Second, you're ignoring Purgatory.  You don't "get away with it" in Catholicism.  Every penny is to be repaid either in this life or in Purgatory.

 

The fact that many people act presumptuously, isn't the Church's fault.  The fact that  most people aren't even aware of Purgatory or the nature of the sins such as presumption, is.

 

Presumption is a sin? I find it immensely ironic considering all religions are based on presumptions. You have to presume that your god is the only real god, and all other religions are false. You have to presume an afterlife. You have to presume a conscious supernatural creator. You have to presume the bible is accurate. You have to presume the world is thousands of years old. You have to presume that humans are important in the universe. You have to presume that one small tribe in one remote corner of the world received divine knowledge from a carpenter while the rest of the world, the much more advanced world like the chinese, didn't know any of it. You have to presume the entire human species descends from only two people while at the same time the god that creates them condemns incest while at the same time having incest in the holy book. You have to presume any of it makes sense. Presumption is a sin.

[Donnadogsoth]

A clever repartee, but not one that understands my usage of the word "presumption".

[rosencrantz]

Second, you're ignoring Purgatory.

 

 

 

Where is this Purgatory?

[Donnadogsoth]

Where are you, rosencrantz?

 

Where is the universe?

[dsayers]

Where are you, rosencrantz?

 

Where is the universe?

You referenced something, somebody asked for clarification, you mocked them.

 

When you communicate, in addition to what you're actually saying, you are also communicating that you expect your communication to be received. Clarifying your communication is part of this endeavor. When asked to do just that, you refused. Why should anybody take such an individual seriously? We might as well offer a soliloquy to a brick wall. 

[Donnadogsoth]

You referenced something, somebody asked for clarification, you mocked them.

 

When you communicate, in addition to what you're actually saying, you are also communicating that you expect your communication to be received. Clarifying your communication is part of this endeavor. When asked to do just that, you refused. Why should anybody take such an individual seriously? We might as well offer a soliloquy to a brick wall. 

 

I didn't mock rosencrantz, dsayers, I responded as succinctly as I could to get them to ask them to question where they were, and where the universe was, in order to get them to consider those answers in light of their question regarding "where" Purgatory is.

 

You act in bad faith and are projecting that badness onto others.  You have nothing constructive to contribute to a discussion of Purgatory.  So butt out.

[dsayers]

I understand that if somebody rejects their own capacity for error, they'd rather not have any self-contradiction brought to their attention. And that were that to happen, the person living in fantasy would lash out at the person pointing it out rather than the people who abused them in such a way that they could hold opposing beliefs and not realize it or find it to be problematic.

[regevdl]

You know, it's a very good point and if I may add another angle to this perspective.  I know a few people who were heavy into drugs and partying and reckless behavior and just did everything 'to the extreme'....work for greedy motives, not for purpose/pleasure etc.  They have what's commonly referred to as 'addictive behavior'.  And that doesn't mean just with drugs, etc.  

 

i've lost touch with these people (as I was only acquaintences of them anyway) and have since learned (after several years of non contact) that they are now religious.  But not just simple religious people but like to the extreme religious.  This ranges from Christianity to Judiasm...so it didn't matter which faith the person 'found' themselves in, they took it to the 'addictive' extreme degree which just repeated the pattern. 

 

Now, to be fair, I will say the religion probably saved their lives and I know they full heartedly believe that and why they want to devote their life to it but I still see it as a coping mechanism as you suggested and simply another addiction because they have not gotten to the root of their behavior tendecies. 

 

If they left the drug life and organized themselves and got help and became self aware and still became religious, I doubt they would be EXTREMELY religious but the fact that they didn't make any new discoveries about themselves other than drugs will kill them, they just replaced it with other 'feel good' vices that consumes their time/life, called religion.  

[rosencrantz]

Where are you, rosencrantz?

 

Where is the universe?

 

Claims that cannot be tested are worthless. If you can't back up a statement with ways to falsify it, the statement relates to the dragon in the garage http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

[Donnadogsoth]

Claims that cannot be tested are worthless. If you can't back up a statement with ways to falsify it, the statement relates to the dragon in the garage http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

 

[shrug] You asked where Purgatory is and I answered.

[Will Torbald]

Where is this Purgatory?

He's implying the world we live in is the purgatory of Christians. Rather indirectly by now, but that's what I get from his comments.

[Donnadogsoth]

He's implying the world we live in is the purgatory of Christians. Rather indirectly by now, but that's what I get from his comments.

 

No, Will, the implication was that asking "where" Purgatory is is like asking "where" the universe is.  It just is, it isn't a dot on a map.

[Will Torbald]

No, Will, the implication was that asking "where" Purgatory is is like asking "where" the universe is. It just is, it isn't a dot on a map.

Have you wondered how it sound if you were talking about Narnia? No, Don, you don't ask "where" Narnia is. Narnia just is, it isn't a dot in a map. It's like asking "where" the universe is. Or like asking where Middle Earth is. Or like asking where Wonderland is. Or like asking where Valhalla is. Or asking where Trikuti is. Or asking where Hogwarts is.

 

It just is somewhere someplace and you shouldn't ask or think about these things. How silly of you to question the majesty of Odin and Dumbledore! The eye of Sauron is looking at you and will judge you. Just sip the tea and celebrate your unbirthday like everyone else.

[Donnadogsoth]

Have you wondered how it sound if you were talking about Narnia? No, Don, you don't ask "where" Narnia is. Narnia just is, it isn't a dot in a map. It's like asking "where" the universe is. Or like asking where Middle Earth is. Or like asking where Wonderland is. Or like asking where Valhalla is. Or asking where Trikuti is. Or asking where Hogwarts is.

 

It just is somewhere someplace and you shouldn't ask or think about these things. How silly of you to question the majesty of Odin and Dumbledore! The eye of Sauron is looking at you and will judge you. Just sip the tea and celebrate your unbirthday like everyone else.

 

Yes, you grasp the concept of what an absurdity it is to ask where another dimension or world or universe "is".

[Will Torbald]

Yes, you grasp the concept of what an absurdity it is to ask where another dimension or world or universe "is".

 

That's great, but oh, if only people would recognize the absurdity of believing those other dimensions and universes were real.

[A4E]

Reminds me of a relative who well into her adulthood falsely charged her very kind father, (who never harmed anyone or anything), on incest, for economic gain.

 

She must have forgotten about the alleged incest after she had children, before the lawsuit, because she had repeatedly left her children in the care of this very same person.

 

She won. And some years later, after other people in the family had shunned her, and she had moved far away by her own volition, she became a devout christian, and also managed to get her son on board.

[Donnadogsoth]

That's great, but oh, if only people would recognize the absurdity of believing those other dimensions and universes were real.

 

"Real" can be a hard thing to pin down.  Are the Jungian archetypes real?  They permeate storytelling, but have no physical location.  They are psychic entities associated with humanity, yet are not the same as humanity.  A shaman or wise-woman engaged in telling sacred or healing stories involving archetypes and gods may not be understanding "real" in the way a fundamentalist materialist might use the term.  He or she might be talking archetypally about things that have an efficient cause in human life even as they lack "reality".

[Will Torbald]

"Real" can be a hard thing to pin down.

 

There's good philosophy for that. Good old logic, empiricism, materialism, all the basics. It's not hard when you abandon all "a priori" rationalisms as valid forms of acquiring knowledge about "the real world".

[Donnadogsoth]

There's good philosophy for that. Good old logic, empiricism, materialism, all the basics. It's not hard when you abandon all "a priori" rationalisms as valid forms of acquiring knowledge about "the real world".

 

Logic and empiricism have their place, but materialism?  That's a sneaky insert.  We can live very well without any concept of material other than a secondary one, a placeholder one.  The monad generates the material, not the material the monad.

[Will Torbald]

Logic and empiricism have their place, but materialism?  That's a sneaky insert.  We can live very well without any concept of material other than a secondary one, a placeholder one.  The monad generates the material, not the material the monad.

 

From Merriam Webster:

 

 

Full Definition of MATERIALISM

1

a :  a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

 

If you can clearly inform me of any way that reality isn't material, or that something exists without being material - with evidence, reason, self consistent logic - then I will be glad to hear this argument.

[Donnadogsoth]

From Merriam Webster:

 

 

If you can clearly inform me of any way that reality isn't material, or that something exists without being material - with evidence, reason, self consistent logic - then I will be glad to hear this argument.

 

Human creativity as a function of the human mind.  The mind is not material, yet it is the source of efficient cause in the universe.  Indeed, it is the reason we continue to exist.

 

Materialists will argue "the brain is the mind" but this is confusing our primary datum of experience, our consciousness, with the sense-impressions associated with it.  Sense-impressions are not ontologically primary, they are shadows of the interactions of universal principles such as gravitation, light, creativity, etc..  "Matter" is purely a sense-impression, not a principle.

[Will Torbald]

Human creativity as a function of the human mind.  The mind is not material, yet it is the source of efficient cause in the universe.  Indeed, it is the reason we continue to exist.

 

Materialists will argue "the brain is the mind" but this is confusing our primary datum of experience, our consciousness, with the sense-impressions associated with it.  Sense-impressions are not ontologically primary, they are shadows of the interactions of universal principles such as gravitation, light, creativity, etc..  "Matter" is purely a sense-impression, not a principle.

 

Human creativity translates to imagination, and as I read it, you're saying that what you can think is real, is real. "The mind is the source of cause in the universe". Sorry, but this is not what I asked for. Thanks for trying, but this is not evidence.

[Donnadogsoth]

Human creativity translates to imagination, and as I read it, you're saying that what you can think is real, is real. "The mind is the source of cause in the universe". Sorry, but this is not what I asked for. Thanks for trying, but this is not evidence.

 

There is nothing the materialist paradigm can assert that cannot more coherently be explained by the idealist paradigm.

 

[Will Torbald]

There is nothing the materialist paradigm can assert that cannot more coherently be explained by the idealist paradigm.

 

 

"More coherently explained" implies that idealism explains anything at all, which it doesn't. You cannot argue with a materialist without the contradiction that in fact you'd be arguing against yourself (since everything is inside your head) - while agreeing with yourself about that which you argue against the materialist.

[Donnadogsoth]

Bald assertion based on modernist prejudice.  There is no need for the materialist paradigm, and as such I dispense with it.  The very notion of experience being "in your head" is itself merely a sense-delusion, or akin to a sense delusion.  If "everything" is within your head, that means your head is identical to the universe, which is the same thing as me saying that all is within myself as a monad--except for other monads, which are self-contained in their turn.  I'm unclear whether I am within your head or not, according to you, since "everything" is within your head.

[Will Torbald]

Bald assertion based on modernist prejudice.  There is no need for the materialist paradigm, and as such I dispense with it.  The very notion of experience being "in your head" is itself merely a sense-delusion, or akin to a sense delusion.  If "everything" is within your head, that means your head is identical to the universe, which is the same thing as me saying that all is within myself as a monad--except for other monads, which are self-contained in their turn.  I'm unclear whether I am within your head or not, according to you, since "everything" is within your head.

 

Idealism is the geocentrism of philosophy - completely outdated nonsense. I'm done talking about this.

[Donnadogsoth]

Idealism is the geocentrism of philosophy - completely outdated nonsense. I'm done talking about this.

 

But I'm not, and I'm inside your head!

[Koroviev]

Donnadogsoth, I have a question. Have you given even the slightest consideration that you may be wrong? I mean good on you for sticking to your beliefs, and props to Will for sticking with the conversations, but they never seem to get anywhere, and it tends to be because you refuse to budge no matter what arguments or evidence are given.

 

If you haven't given any consideration that you may be wrong, doesn't that mean you're blindly following your beliefs which kind of goes against the whole point of this community? One of the first rules of philosophy, and critical thinking, is that you give extra consideration to the arguments that go against what you think to be true to try and make up for any confirmation bias or blind spots all of us have.

 

I mean if you're not going to be open to arguments that's fine, you're free to do what you want, but it's not ok to pretend to be open while refusing to be open at all.

 

Simply because this is the internet and I can see this coming up, this is in no way trying to say that we are right and you are wrong simply curious as to how you are approaching this and other conversations like it.

[Donnadogsoth]

Donnadogsoth, I have a question. Have you given even the slightest consideration that you may be wrong? I mean good on you for sticking to your beliefs, and props to Will for sticking with the conversations, but they never seem to get anywhere, and it tends to be because you refuse to budge no matter what arguments or evidence are given.

 

If you haven't given any consideration that you may be wrong, doesn't that mean you're blindly following your beliefs which kind of goes against the whole point of this community? One of the first rules of philosophy, and critical thinking, is that you give extra consideration to the arguments that go against what you think to be true to try and make up for any confirmation bias or blind spots all of us have.

 

I mean if you're not going to be open to arguments that's fine, you're free to do what you want, but it's not ok to pretend to be open while refusing to be open at all.

 

Simply because this is the internet and I can see this coming up, this is in no way trying to say that we are right and you are wrong simply curious as to how you are approaching this and other conversations like it.

 

I'm open to principled arguments, Koroviev, meaning arguments coming from the view that principles or monads cast their shadows into our minds (monads). The material world is shadow to principled fire.

 

Is this wrong? It's the basis for human profit, for human creativity, for a solid basis for political freedom. So, no, that's not wrong. There are many things I don't know, including most principles, but the principle of human creativity in terms of the primary relationship between the creative monad and the universe is not wrong. If it were, I would not bother posting here, or anywhere of any import.

 

The arguments never “seem to get anywhere,” because I am operating on the basis of what I have just described, and others are debating their ideology. We're not “on the same page” because there is no principled belief, no belief in principles. We're not working together, we're working at cross-purposes.