Is Religion a basic human need ?

[stvdv]

Could it be said then, that religion satisfies a basic human need?

Definition. Human needs are commonly used to refer to the drivers of peoples' actions, the motives behind human behavior. Other uses of the concept include needs as instruments to achieve a certain goal and needs as societal requirements to flourish or experience a good life (Gasper, 2004).

The answer is "No", Religion is not a basic human need

Proof: If humans live in a remote place (no Religion), they can live very well without Religion, hence Religion is not a basic need for all humans

 

[Trailblazer]

If there is one true god, then he is the same god, from ancient times to the present.

That's true. God is immutable.

Yet those who claim to 'know' God, know different gods. There is nothing progressive in this revelation. Those who know god, seem to know different gods simultaneously, they perceive different truths in their hearts simultaneously.

They believe in (know) different Gods because their religions are different and the Founder of their religion revealed God differently and he revealed different truths.

Again, the religious politics may be progressive, but I'd expect those claiming to know God personally to know the same god. They do not. They know different gods, with different agendas and moral systems, not progressively, but at the same time.

They know different gods, with different agendas and moral systems, because they believe in different religions that had different agendas and moral systems.

I was not saying that there is progressive revelation within the same religion(s), I was saying that religion progresses from one age to another.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

 

[Shadow Wolf]

People can, and do, live without love, too. And some people live a very long time without hope.

I wouldn't want that though, for myself or anybody else..

No love and no hope isn't good for a mind.
Lots of people do just fine without religion.

 

[Heyo]

You said: "Which would make them different things, the real world and "another world"."

Yes, I believe that this world (the material world) and another world (the spiritual world) are different worlds, but they are all part of what I consider to be reality, because they both exist.

Since nonbelievers believe that only the material world exists in reality and believers believe that both the material world and the spiritual world exist in reality, we disagree about what reality is, so we cannot both be right. Either there is only one world (the material world) or there are two worlds (the material world and the spiritual world).

But we can both be right if you just stop with the word games.
We agree that the material world and the spiritual world are different things. Then we should be able to agree that they deserve different names. Calling them both "real" only muddies the difference.
We also agree that both worlds exist. I have stated that often and posted 5 Planes of Existence numerous times. (And we had that discussion there already.)
You insist on using a word ("real") in a way it isn't meant to be used, that's the problem.

 

[Valjean]

Hi UArtist,
One study has shown that faith Is an Innate human quality.
Study Shows Faith Is an Innate Human Quality - The New American

It has found that religion is deep-rooted in human nature, thwarting it is in some sense not enabling humans to fulfill their basic interests.

There is quite a drive to think that religion is private. It isn’t just a quirky interest of a few; it’s basic human nature. This shows that it’s much more universal, prevalent, and deep-rooted. It’s got to be reckoned with.

They say: "You can’t just pretend it isn’t there."

Of course we will always find someone that disagree.

The 'innate human quality' is not what we know as religion, per se. It's a constellation of hard-wired psychological features that predispose people to develop religion, under certain situations. There is not a "natural tendency to believe in God and an afterlife." These are artifacts of a new kind of social organization.

For most of our history we did not have a discrete social category called religion. Societies were homogenous and egalitarian. Separate social categories like religion, politics, technology, propriety, and food acquisition did not exist. Specialization, categorization and hierarchy are recent, unnatural developments, which arose after people adopted agriculture and settled communities.

Humter-gatherer view on life's important issues, meaning, purpose, afterlife?:

Summary: "give us food and water." God, meaning, purpose, afterlife: "meh"

 

[Valjean]

They know different gods, with different agendas and moral systems, because they believe in different religions that had different agendas and moral systems.

My point exactly. Their claims to know god in their hearts are not actual divine insights, but delusions corresponding to their personal, enculturated value systems. Their insights are bogus.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No love and no hope isn't good for a mind.
Lots of people do just fine without religion.

Without religion, sure.

Without paying equal attention to the needs of mind, body and spirit?
I can only speak for myself; and it never worked for me.

 

[RestlessSoul]

My point exactly. Their claims to know god in their hearts are not actual divine insights, but delusions corresponding to their personal, enculturated value systems. Their insights are bogus.

You appear to have decided that, from your chosen position of contempt for something you don't understand. How can you possibly know what is in the heart of another, if you refuse to give any credibility to what they sincerely try to tell you?

 

[Trailblazer]

But we can both be right if you just stop with the word games.
We agree that the material world and the spiritual world are different things. Then we should be able to agree that they deserve different names. Calling them both "real" only muddies the difference.
We also agree that both worlds exist. I have stated that often and posted 5 Planes of Existence numerous times. (And we had that discussion there already.)
You insist on using a word ("real") in a way it isn't meant to be used, that's the problem.

I am sorry but I forgot that you believed that there are other planes of existence. I was not referring to what you believe but rather what atheists believe exists vs. what believers believe exists. Do you know any atheists who believe that there are other planes of existence?

What I mean by reality is as follows:

Reality:

1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reality+means

 

[Trailblazer]

My point exactly. Their claims to know god in their hearts are not actual divine insights, but delusions corresponding to their personal, enculturated value systems. Their insights are bogus.

Their beliefs about God are generally what they have been taught or what they have learned from a religion.
I do not think they are divine insights or delusions.

 

[Valjean]

You appear to have decided that, from your chosen position of contempt for something you don't understand. How can you possibly know what is in the heart of another, if you refuse to give any credibility to what they sincerely try to tell you?

I'd be happy to give credibility to their reports -- if they were credible and consistent, but they are not.

I don't claim to know what is in their hearts. I claim that their claims to know god personally and understand his values are inconsistent, and would not be were their claims were true.

 

[Valjean]

Their beliefs about God are generally what they have been taught or what they have learned from a religion.
I do not think they are divine insights or delusions.

So we're in agreement.

 

[Trailblazer]

So we're in agreement.

Basically, yes.

 

[Heyo]

Do you know any atheists who believe that there are other planes of existence?

I know of no atheist who doesn't believe in other planes of existence. I think most agree that laws, rights and borders exist without being tangible (what I call constructs). At least they wouldn't deny it when confronted with the idea. There are some who haven't thought about it (yet) who may proclaim that only physical objects exist but that is an indefensible position.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'd be happy to give credibility to their reports -- if they were credible and consistent, but they are not.

I don't claim to know what is in their hearts. I claim that their claims to know god personally and understand his values are inconsistent, and would not be were their claims were true.

Well yes, I would advise being wary of anyone who claims to speak for God, or to prescribe for the behaviour of others, based on their supposed knowledge of His will for them. But that’s not what we were just talking about.

If you listen to or read first hand accounts of any number of human experiences, from childbirth to hang gliding, you’ll find inconsistencies, especially if that’s what you are looking for. But you’ll also find plenty of common ground among all who have experienced these things; and you wouldn’t even need to have experienced them yourself, to be moved by their accounts.

 

[Colt]

John B. Noss suggest that man does not and cannot stand alone. He is vitally related to and even dependent on powers in nature and Society external to himself. Man's Religions

It seems that this premise could explain the reason for the proliferation of religions in the world, and is evidence of a deep seated requirement of human to worship a higher power.

Could it be said then, that religion satisfies a basic human need? That it is comparable to food and water in that it is subject to a similar drive to be fulfilled ?

Possibly, Jesus words are a good reason to view this premise as valid:
"My food is for me to do the will of him that send me..." John 4:34
The Apostle Paul compared spiritual knowledge as food:" ...solid food belongs to mature people..." Heb 5:14

Even those that reject a divinity have some type of belief.
Although vehemently rejected by followers, Evolution is aptly demonstrated to be a belief with all the hallmark of a religion. (Evolution Is Religion--Not Science).

It's interesting that there are words for a person with no affiliation to a religion or for a person that does not believe in God, but there are no words for a person without a belief.(to my knowledge)
Additionally, even a furtive glance at the definition of "belief" shows that it has all the signs of being closely related to religion.

Contrary to animals, everybody has an inbuilt requirement to believe in something higher than themselves.
Of course there is always someone declaring that he believes only in himself. At best that belief is ephemeral and subject to a rude awakening to reality.

Is it possible that our creator made us with a need to believe in him ?

Yes, and by design. The fact is that, regardless of weather or not life evolved spontaneously (or had a God-cause) evolution itself has produced humans that have universally sought a God-cause explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, and by design. The fact is that, regardless of weather or not life evolved spontaneously (or had a God-cause) evolution itself has produced humans that have universally sought a God-cause explanation.

It also produced humans that "universally" crave salt and sugar. What significance should we take from that?

 

[Colt]

It also produced humans that "universally" crave salt and sugar. What significance should we take from that?

Design.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Design.

That's a leap, IMO, but let's go with it for a monent.

So we were designed to worship God and want Cheetos?

What purpose would God have in wanting us to crave foods that - in modern times - are plentiful to the point of creating health issues?

Are diabetes and heart disease fundamental parts of God's holy plan?

 

[Colt]

That's a leap, IMO, but let's go with it for a monent.

So we were designed to worship God and want Cheetos?

What purpose would God have in wanting us to crave foods that - in modern times - are plentiful to the point of creating health issues?

Are diabetes and heart disease fundamental parts of God's holy plan?

The food component is to teach you how to have self control. The spiritual component if the experience of discerning truth from error. We exist within a rage of parameters.