Why Are Some Inclined Towards Religion, But Others Not?

[suncowiam]

Note:
This post isn't based upon any searching or research on this topic.
I know it's rambling.
I'm curious what people think.

Some categories.....
1) I notice that some people are drawn to a single force acting behind
the scenes to explain then natural world, eg, a god, a coterie of gods.
Furthermore, I notice they tend to see other things, eg, politics, as having
hidden forces to explain events, eg, the commie conspiracy to enslave
us all, the Muslim conspiracy to take over the world.

2) Others (this heathen included) tend to eschew hidden masterminds
(natural or supernatural) prefering explanations rooted in material causes.

I don't think #1 types are any less intelligent than #2s, but each has a
hardwired (or perhaps something more analogous to firmware) way of
groking reality.
I wonder?
- There appears to be a component of culture in determining orientation.
- Is there a genetic component too?
- Experience also appears to play a role, eg, unmet prayers, a desire for
spiritual connection to something greater than oneself.
- Some people will more readily adopt as truth something which is plausible
but unverified. Then all things are seen thru this lens.
- Others are more skeptical, & consider alternatives to what might be obvious.

The above things apply to many things other than just religion.
Thoughts?

Personally, I wasn't forced to by my parents, my family or my community.

Plus, I'm a touchy feely kind of person.

 

[Revoltingest]

That isn't the question I asked. Read it again:

What's the difference between the "some people" you referred to in that sentence that "some people" who are "drawn to" energy as the "single force acting behind the scenes to explain the natural world?

I never said anything about anyone being drawn to energy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't call deity, energy.

However some do, and there are ideas WITHIN what we consider religion, where they don't actually separate the energy from deity.

As an engineer, I consider energy something entirely different from a god.

 

[Desert Snake]

As an engineer, I consider energy something entirely different from a god.

If energy is god to you, it's a god belief. We don't consider them "atheists", and it's a pretty standard though not common perception.

 

[Revoltingest]

If energy is god to you....

That's the opposite of what I posted.
Energy is just energy, not a god.

 

[Desert Snake]

That's the opposite of what I posted.
Energy is just energy, not a god.

That then is not a god belief, agreed

 

[Katzpur]

Speaking for myself, I find myself avoiding talking about buying a new car when I'm in my current car out of some sort of concern for the car's feelings. I know it's irrational, but I can't help but feel it.

I'm trying to decide whether you're being serious or just pulling my leg, but if you're serious, guess what? I do the same thing!

 

[Polymath257]

I'm trying to decide whether you're being serious or just pulling my leg, but if you're serious, guess what? I do the same thing!

So then, the question is whether those who name their car or are concerned about hurting its feelings when buying a new car are more likely to be religious.

In other words, if someone is likely to attribute a personality and intent to a car, are they more likely to be religious?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm trying to decide whether you're being serious or just pulling my leg, but if you're serious, guess what? I do the same thing!

I am. I'm also weird about musical instruments.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

God does NOT call everyone to Himself. Those who are called will be more inclined to religion. Those who are not called will be less inclined.

 

[Katzpur]

So then, the question is whether those who name their car or are concerned about hurting its feelings when buying a new car are more likely to be religious.

In other words, if someone is likely to attribute a personality and intent to a car, are they more likely to be religious?

Offhand, I'd say 'yes,' but if Penguin is that way, it kind of shoots that theory all to heck.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Note:
This post isn't based upon any searching or research on this topic.
I know it's rambling.
I'm curious what people think.

Some categories.....
1) I notice that some people are drawn to a single force acting behind
the scenes to explain then natural world, eg, a god, a coterie of gods.
Furthermore, I notice they tend to see other things, eg, politics, as having
hidden forces to explain events, eg, the commie conspiracy to enslave
us all, the Muslim conspiracy to take over the world.

2) Others (this heathen included) tend to eschew hidden masterminds
(natural or supernatural) prefering explanations rooted in material causes.

I don't think #1 types are any less intelligent than #2s, but each has a
hardwired (or perhaps something more analogous to firmware) way of
groking reality.
I wonder?
- There appears to be a component of culture in determining orientation.
- Is there a genetic component too?
- Experience also appears to play a role, eg, unmet prayers, a desire for
spiritual connection to something greater than oneself.
- Some people will more readily adopt as truth something which is plausible
but unverified. Then all things are seen thru this lens.
- Others are more skeptical, & consider alternatives to what might be obvious.

The above things apply to many things other than just religion.
Thoughts?

Not to be contrarian- but I was a 'hardwired' atheist- in upbringing and personal beliefs for several decades before I became a skeptic (of atheism.)

I think both camps are equally capable of critical thought, and we all want to know the truth.

Ultimately I take the 'inclusive' view, there are both spontaneous and purposeful mechanisms behind reality, randomness and pre-determination. We can't be sure of course, and so nobody is really 'wrong' unless they forbid one of these mechanisms for some reason. which can only be based on ideological preference.

As Gump said: 'Maybe it's both?'

 

[Revoltingest]

Not to be contrarian- but I was a 'hardwired' atheist- in upbringing and personal beliefs for several decades before I became a skeptic (of atheism.)

I think both camps are equally capable of critical thought, and we all want to know the truth.

Ultimately I take the 'inclusive' view, there are both spontaneous and purposeful mechanisms behind reality, randomness and pre-determination. We can't be sure of course, and so nobody is really 'wrong' unless they forbid one of these mechanisms for some reason. which can only be based on ideological preference.

As Gump said: 'Maybe it's both?'

You're always welcome back to the atheist camp.
I'll even waive the administrative fee.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're always welcome back to the atheist camp.
I'll even waive the administrative fee.

Thank you I appreciate that, since I have proven one thing here; my opinion on all this is entirely unreliable..

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I enjoy the ambience that religion can bring. The sight and smell of burning candles and incense, ritual, robes, colors etc.

For me on many occasions, it helps organise abstracts with the use of religious imagery and decor. Dunno why. Maybe its the contrast discerned whenever abstract meets the straightforward.

This is an interesting area to me. It has exactly the opposite effect, to the point that it can leave me quite melancholy. And (like you) I'm not sure why. I mean, sometimes there are specifics to a service or sermon which are identifiable, but the whole thing doesn't resonate with me, almost regardless of content or religion. Even indigenous ceremonies have this impact if I pay attention (and I generally do).

Whereas other abstract thoughts, or subjective representations (art, for example) I find intensely interesting and invigorating, even where my knowledge of the area is limited.

It's interesting. Nearest I've ever got to identifying a root cause is that I'm more comfortable with individualism (even if counter-culture or rebellious) than group-think (even if positive in it's messaging). I'm not sure that's right though. I am certainly not a particularly rebellious person.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're always welcome back to the atheist camp.
I'll even waive the administrative fee.

We have a camp??? Is there a reason no-one told me? The flatulence is almost entirely under control now. Apart from on taco Tuesday.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I do not agree in the slightest, what you have said is utterly irrational. The application of reason is the key to survival and progress. ALL of my decisions, without exception are guided by pure application of considered reason, YOU might not be equipped to do that, so speak for yourself. I am actually angered by your post, which is rare. You don't win wars with irrational hope. You win wars with strategy weapons and determination. I am now so annoyed I am going to have to go and have a cup of tea.

Hi,

Not sure if you saw earlier (it was in response to someone else) but I did mention that there have been a lot of recent studies on sports (as a competitive environment where constant decision-making is required). Application of considered reason is actually easily provable as NOT the best way to advance in all cases.
You're obviously someone who thinks about their position. Is there a reason you are certain reason is universally the best way to move forwards 'without exception'? I would readily agree the world needs more reason that it has, but can't agree it is universally the best decision making tool. It is (as all else is in my opinion) subjective and contextual.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank you I appreciate that, since I have proven one thing here; my opinion on all this is entirely unreliable..

Even reliable people have the right to change their mind occasionally.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have a camp??? Is there a reason no-one told me? The flatulence is almost entirely under control now. Apart from on taco Tuesday.

Well then.....welcome back!
Btw, the camp is now dingo free, so safe for the kiddies.

 

[Grandliseur]

Note:
This post isn't based upon any searching or research on this topic.
I know it's rambling.
I'm curious what people think.

Some categories.....
1) I notice that some people are drawn to a single force acting behind
the scenes to explain then natural world, eg, a god, a coterie of gods.
Furthermore, I notice they tend to see other things, eg, politics, as having
hidden forces to explain events, eg, the commie conspiracy to enslave
us all, the Muslim conspiracy to take over the world.

2) Others (this heathen included) tend to eschew hidden masterminds
(natural or supernatural) prefering explanations rooted in material causes.

I don't think #1 types are any less intelligent than #2s, but each has a
hardwired (or perhaps something more analogous to firmware) way of
groking reality.
I wonder?
- There appears to be a component of culture in determining orientation.
- Is there a genetic component too?
- Experience also appears to play a role, eg, unmet prayers, a desire for
spiritual connection to something greater than oneself.
- Some people will more readily adopt as truth something which is plausible
but unverified. Then all things are seen thru this lens.
- Others are more skeptical, & consider alternatives to what might be obvious.

The above things apply to many things other than just religion.
Thoughts?

I think your question and the claim it makes is a clear case of confusing what things are about.

Sorry to say it so frankly. But, there are some who have clearly demonstrated how atheists need much more faith than believers to hold on to their belief system. If one accepts this, then all of us, in general, atheists, Buddhist, Muslim, person who worships their ancestors, etc. - all are running the same software, the only difference is their target of their devotion. Of course, some people devote exclusive devotion to mammon; these may not care about the side issues much. Others, live to satisfy their human desires, and that is their focus.

But, the software is the same. The devotion is as intense. The focus is different, and that is all.