The problem I have with religion is the focus on "removing the doubt", which I strongly disagree with - doubting a god's existance is a major no-no in most popular religions. And as soon as you remove the doubt ban, you don't really have a religion anymore, but a philosophy.

So I'd personally recommend philosophy to people, instead of religion. Bertrand Russell (also known for his mathematical work) is an excellent place to start.

EDIT: For those who disagree, I'd recommend a Russell's essay "Why I Am Not A Christian" [0]. It is quite short and readable.

https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

>recommend philosophy to people, instead of religion

Religion is philosophy, plus ritual and aesthetics. It's the set of philosophies that have survived the ravages of time. It's a set of philosophies that are so useful to live by, that these philosophies have survived through books and rituals for millennia. Or put another way, these philosophies are so incredibly effective, that people are surviving today precisely because they've lived by those philosophies, and the only reason we know of these philosophies is because they are survived by, and helped to survive, the people who've passed and continue to pass them down to others.

There existed philosophies you've never heard of, that are dead, because they died with the people who've followed them. Is it just chance? Is it because the surviving philosophies are better? Who knows. But if you're a betting man, you should bet on those surviving philosophies being actually better, more useful, more conducive to survival.

>the focus on "removing the doubt"

I think this is a focus exclusive to "nu-Christian" Anglosphere denominations, primarily American ones, and their focus is made a spectacle of because: (1) their focus is understandably cringe and the outrage is entertaining (2) the spectacle is used as a tool to de-legitimize religion as a whole, especially Christianity.

> There existed philosophies you've never heard of, that are dead, because they died with the people who've followed them. Is it just chance? Is it because the surviving philosophies are better? Who knows. But if you're a betting man, you should bet on those surviving philosophies being actually better, more useful, more conducive to survival.

I get what you're saying but to offer another perspective, informed by the work of Rober Pirsig as presented in his second book 'Lila': I think those religions/philosophies you mention are an organism of their own, with humans as their hardware. Are they really more useful for any given human? (certainly some are not, if we choose a human who's an outlier, a 'black sheep', so to speak) Or ar they useful and more conductive to the survival of the religion/philosophy itself?

I think it's a struggle between intellect (the individual) and culture (religion, country, a political party, etc.).

> There existed philosophies you've never heard of, that are dead, because they died with the people who've followed them. Is it just chance?

Nope. Religion tends to bring people together, often making them much more powerful as a group. But to me, it's just not worth selling out.

> I think this is a focus exclusive to "nu-Christian" Anglosphere denominations

I don't think that is the case. John 14:6 says:

    “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me”

So basically, if you don't believe in Jesus, you can't go to heaven. If that's not an effort to restrict doubt, then what is?

This is pretty disingenuous don't you think? In the same book a few chapters later we read:

> Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” John 20:24-25

If that's not encouraging engaging with doubt I don't know what is.

> If that's not an effort to restrict doubt, then what is?

I can tell you that 1 + 1 = 2 and you can still doubt me. Just because you doubt me it doesn't make that statement any less true. Also, me stating that fact isn't me restricting doubt, it's just me stating a fact. If Jesus was God, and what He says here is true, He's stating a fact. You can choose to believe or not to believe, or doubt or not to doubt.

But what is ’I’ in this sentence?

Personally I see it a ’truth’ like in scientific truth and personal integrity.

Imagine Jesus as the incarnation of the best possible person. I you where to try to based your actions in a similar way, what would you do?

"No man comes to the Father but by me”:

You won't be the best version of yourself by chasing any other things (fame, money, pleasure, etc)

I too was disgusted by the first degree interpretation (obviously false) but I now discover a second degree reading that explain our human condition and most of our problems.

Look into Peterson Biblical lecture on Youtube if you want to see a psychological way of looking at the bible.

One thing I dislike about Christianity in particular is how malleable to interpretation it is, making any kind of discussion with a Christian tedious. No matter what part of Bible you try to argue with, a Christian will always be able to say: "But that's not the real meaning! The real meaning is [thing I pulled out of thin air]", rendering your words moot, without actually engaging in your argument at all.

I still can't figure out how to deal with it, which is why I usually refrain from arguing with religious people. Afterall, when it comes to the big questions (like, is there a god), neither one of us can bring anything to the table - it's impossible to know by definition. And since all religious teachings are based on the existence of a god, there is no way to convince anyone of anything without first proving the unprovable. It's like two completely different sets of axioms - of course the conclusions are gonna be different, and the concept of axioms being "right" or "wrong" is meaningless by itself.

I see it as a fusion of the campfire stories that humans have told themselves over thousand of years.

The fact that it was written in a book gave it incredible power and have allow our civilisation to exist and science to be developed but also removed much of the evolutions of the stories.

Now that our world change so fast the stories seems very outdated to our modern mind but most of them speak about a deep human conditions and traps we feel into multiple times.

It hard to speak to christians as most see it a first level reading (literally true) but most people are not ready to go into deep analysis of meaning, they need a story to unite them, to show them a way to a good life and so it was for all people 200 years ago.

Without those stories people put other things in its place (false idols) like money, pleasure, diversity and equity, communism, fascism, etc.

To the question is there a God, the God of the bible is a mix of the natural environment (god of wind, god of the sun, etc) and the human civilisation ’thou shall not kill’ if you kill, God will be angry: you are going to have a bad time (at the hands of other humans)

If you have the time, the Peterson lectures gave me a way to understand it that make sense to me (no bearded magician in the sky)

Interesting perspective. I'll check the lectures out - I have listened to Jordan Peterson before and I like the way he thinks and presents things.

Buddhism encourages doubt (in most lineages). There is a sutta where the Buddha said:

> “You have a right to be confused. This is a confusing situation. Do not take anything on trust merely because it has passed down through tradition, or because your teachers say it, or because your elders have taught you, or because it’s written in some famous scripture. When you have seen it and experienced it for yourself to be right and true, then you can accept it.”

I have had some limited exposure to Buddhism, but I very much like what I've read. Buddhism seems to focus more on human-as-is and making peace with existence, instead of human-as-should-be and making war with existence, as, for example, Christianity does - by the cardinal sin, the human is sinful through its very existence.

The cardinal sin represent the awakening of the human mind, we no longer live in the moment, we can imagine the future and that make us powerful but also miserable (we can suffer from problems we imagine in the future)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi5KkXig3s

There is an interpretation that disagrees with what I said, I know. Whatever I say, there will be an interpretation out there that disagrees with what I said.

Even in Buddhism. I find pretty much anytime I say anything about it online I have to add "in most lineages" because there are certainly dogmatic ones.

Random question - what resources would you recommend to someone who is interested in learning more about Buddhism?

I really like the quote you've posted. I dislike bullshit. There are many bullshit Buddhism resources out there. Where can I find the real thing?

That's only true on the folk-religion side of things. I can't speak to other faiths, but serious Christian thought has always engaged with doubt.

Some of my favorite Christian works are all about doubt, but the conclusion tends to be faith is the only way. The Catholic priest in the movie may raise his hands during the thunderstorm and shout angrily at God to show himself, but what saves him is the "leap of faith" where he realizes that God will never give you proof of his existance - it's more sophisticated, but it's still the folksy blind faith.

Many Christians believe that you must believe in Jesus to get into heaven. I prefer what Proust said (paraphrasing - the actual quote I can't find and is far more beautiful): "Who is more likely to get into heaven - someone who believes in god, despises and judges the world and mankind or someone who loves all of gods creations without judgement but doesn't believe in him?" I refuse to think a loving god would make the litmus test such an arbitrary thing.

See ’faith’ as believing in that doing the ’right’ thing, when no one is looking, by your definition is the best way possible (no deceiving, lying and all other sins).

You cannot have faith and despise the world, you are supposed to judges your failings first before judging others.

12 years of growing up in Christian schools. Doubt came up a lot. Depended on the speaker too. Many would talk about their struggles. Times when they got angry at God, or fell away. Or there reasoning on why God exists.

One constant teaching was that Christianity is not a religion. But about forming a relationship with God through Christ.

> One constant teaching was that Christianity is not a religion. But about forming a relationship with God through Christ.

How can one even begin to attempt that task if one truly doubts that God exists? Also, is believing a God of some sort not exactly what a religion is?

> It takes a lot of faith to believe that there is an all powerful God. that loves you for you.

I feel like I kind of get what you're saying. But it seems to even have this perspective that one ought to try to believe in God, to be motivated to struggle, one already has to accept religious teachings of some kind.

I don't struggle to believe that the universe popped out of nothing, I very easily and without any effort on my part maintain the belief that it's pretty much impossible for us to know where the universe came from and that it's probably not worth expending too much effort worrying about it. I'd see having to make an effort to believe something somewhat of a red flag regarding the validity of that belief.

> Worse that happens is people were nicer to each other for awhile. The other is that you spend eternity in Heaven.

I mean, some religious people are nice to each other. Others are downright nasty and make life very difficult for people who don't fit into their worldview (for example because they're gay). And presumably the worst case is that there is in fact a God who happens to take the opposite view on morality to the Christian one and thus Christians end up spending an eternity in Hell. As far as I can that's no less likely than there being a Christian God.

> I don't struggle to believe that the universe popped out of nothing, I very easily and without any effort on my part maintain the belief that it's pretty much impossible for us to know where the universe came from and that it's probably not worth expending too much effort worrying about it. I'd see having to make an effort to believe something somewhat of a red flag regarding the validity of that belief

A Christian can just as easily say:

I don't struggle to believe that God created the universe out of nothing, I very easily and without any effort on my part maintain the belief that it's pretty much impossible for us to know where the universe came from and that it's probably not worth expending too much effort worrying about it. I'd see having to make an effort to believe something somewhat of a red flag regarding the validity of that belief.

Most reasonable Christians (at least 90% of the Christians I know and have met) will readily admit that we don't know with a 100% certainty that God created the universe. We have faith that He did, but we could very well be wrong. If I'm wrong, at least I've lived a full life and felt like my life had meaning.

> Others are downright nasty and make life very difficult for people who don't fit into their worldview (for example because they're gay)

People get all hung up about a Christian saying that it's a sin to be gay. We also say it's a sin to lie, and it's a sin to lust after a woman (or man) that isn't your spouse, and it's a sin to engage in gluttony. Does that mean we look down on people who have sinned and reject them? No, because like Romans says, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The law is like a mirror. It's a lot easier to see your flaws in a perfect reflective mirror then it is to see them in an old foggy one. The law is a perfect mirror that shows us the depravity we _all_ have inside of us, and it exists so we can strive to be better.

No one will ever attain perfection, but that doesn't mean we're free to go on sinning. Romans is an amazing book if you want to read about a devout Christian's struggle with sin.

Anyways, if a person engages in homosexual behavior, do I think that's a sin? Yes. But I also sin every day. It doesn't excuse it, but it's also no better or worse than any sin that I commit, it just happens to be one I don't struggle with. And if you don't want to be a Christian and still want to be gay, go for it! I'm not going to stop you. Because we're adults, and we make our own choices. It's as simple as that.

My opinion on the behavior means nothing, and I'm not going to berate strangers for engaging in an activity they already know I disapprove of because of my worldview. I literally don't need to say anything, and I won't unless they specifically ask me what my thoughts are on the matter.

A relationship with a person you cannot see, touch, feel, hear, or taste.

Who revealed themselves directly only before the enlightenment, and thereafter must be experienced only in ones mind, testimony from those long dead, or by the evidence of supposed creation.

One of the most famous examples being C.S. Lewis himself, his book A Grief Observed (written after his wife passed) being one of the most clear examples of it. On a slightly related note, there's an excellent film adaptation about C.S. Lewis's relationship with his wife called Shadowlands, starring Anthony Hopkins. Amazing that the man who played Hannibal Lecter could also portray the most famous Christian thinker of the 20th century so well.

I'll second that recommendation. Shadowlands is a superb film. It's very much worth watching even if you have little sympathy with Lewis's religious views.

That's kind of a strawman. Serious Catholic thought (John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Pope Benedict, etc) doesn't try to "remove the doubt" at all. I highly recommend Ratzinger / Benedict for modern text, and the great contemplatives for non-modern texts. They grapple with doubt and all other tricky subjects head on, and have a broad (and in my opinion accurate and subtle) view of the journey of life.

I was also going to recommend John of the Cross. There's also a whole tradition of apophatic (negative) theology, and an associated tradition of darkness mysticism (e.g. Pseudo-Dionysius). That your doubts are founded in the reality that God is unknowable-as-such, and even "existence" may be an invalid concept to apply to the divine.

In that vein, but I've been reading a book that synthesizes John and Teresa and the gospels. It had a few gems that stood out to me recently. On the importance of voiding oneself of all: "He is not only beyond all things, but boundlessly beyond them. Created realities are... more unlike God than like Him.... However impressive may be one's knowledge or feeling of God, that knowledge or feeling will have no resemblance to God and amount to very little."

> The problem I have with religion is the focus on "removing the doubt", which I strongly disagree with

This isn't the case as often as you might think. Consider religions like Unitarianism, for example. You can also make a strong case that the doubt is baked foundationally into Christianity itself-- consider Zizek's readings of Chesterton and Hegel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEuY46p5yH4

> And as soon as you remove the doubt ban, you don't really have a religion anymore, but a philosophy

Lots of philosophers were/are extremely religious

>doubting a god's existance is a major no-no in most popular religions

This is certainly not true of the Christianity that I've been witness to all my life. In those circles, doubt is a given - an intrinsic component of the inquisitive human mind - and doubt is basically the core of all faith. If there's no room for doubt, there's no room for faith.

That's why many of us opt for eastern traditions - which are generally pretty good at separating the philosophical aspects from the belief aspects.

I mean a big chunk of Christian teaching is about faith. It’s not like Christianity teaches “you believe in god? Good, let move on to other stuff now”.

How modern is modern? I have sources back to at least the 1490s which clearly use the word 'religion' (and many more, earlier, sources that use the latin 'religionem') ...

The word has been changing for a long time. For lack of a better way to put it, think of it as the difference between an insider's word and an outsiders. Older texts almost always have an implicit reference to a particular faith in it. A 16th writer who says "he is a religious man" means that "he is an observant $SECT". In modern uses, it almost always means "he believes in this class of beliefs and practices". The reason I refer to it as an outsiders term is that it groups together groups that don't generally think of themselves as one.

Modern usages of the word "religion" group Christians and Muslims (for example), groups that would see themselves as distinct.

Interestingly, you can see a bridge period of sorts. If you think back to characters in movies of the 30s and 40s saying "I am not a religious man, but..." or "I am not a praying man, but..." you can kind of see the shift. A little reference to the good standing meaning but also some of the outsider type frame.

But isn't that ingroup/outgroup-dynamic still happening? Very few westerners would consider the followers of Bagwhan 'religious', they'd rather use something like 'cultists'. Aum/Aleph is a 'cult', even though it represents itself as a syncretism between Buddhism and Christianity. Radical forms of Islam are sometimes called a cult, and sometimes a religion, depending on the speaker.

All that shift in meaning seems to do is that it determines which belief systems are considered appropriate by a speaker, and which aren't...

Agreed, I've never heard of any group self-identify as a 'cult' in modern times. The word almost always has a pejorative connotation to it.

As a funny aside, I went to look up the etymology of the word and a quotation is listed at https://www.etymonline.com/word/Cult:

"Cult is a term which, as we value exactness, we can ill do without, seeing how completely religion has lost its original signification. Fitzedward Hall, "Modern English," 1873"

It strikes me as funny because the problem with the word 'religion' is noted as far back as 1873, but I'd argue 'cult' is now even less precise than 'religion'. I don't think it was always that way. References to Roman mystery religions as 'cults' generally lack the pejorative connotation.

> I recommend religion and religious teachings which address this and many other daily worldly issues perfectly.

This advice simply doesn't work if the recipient is an atheist.

To me, Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones. If you read enough fiction on a shared topic, you'll be able to pull the same number of 'enlightening' quotes from those books as religious people can from their own sacred tomes.

However, IF you are a religious person, and find meaning in your religious books, then take the win, and enjoy that path. It's just that it's not a path everyone can take.

I mean, I used to be an atheist. Like, going to Richard Dawkins on campus, sneering at how stupid Christians were rolling my eyes at every little thing atheist. For a good ten to fifteen years. Then I realized it was terrible for my mental health and just got over myself and adopted more of a Pascal’s Wager outlook. Like, I frankly don’t give a damn about the truth or falsity of religion anymore. That’s not the point. It lets me act as if my life has meaning regardless of whether or not that’s true, which even when I directly reflect on it is a small amount of comfort insulating me from the yawning abyss of existential terror I felt throughout all of my 20s and half of my teens.

If pressed I guess I’ll say it’s unlikely to be true. But that’s not the point. I don’t even care to explain the point really. But both me and my wife ran Meetup groups about being atheist and eventually decided reading Christian philosophy and teachings was a better bet than the slow crushing millstone of the weight of the universe awaiting me behind the curtain of materialism.

There’s a lot of really bad stuff and I think Christianity needs reforming, but I still think it’s the better long term bet in terms of the wellbeing of me and my future generations.

> Like, going to Richard Dawkins on campus, sneering at how stupid Christians were rolling my eyes at every little thing atheist. For a good ten to fifteen years. Then I realized it was terrible for my mental health and just got over myself and adopted more of a Pascal’s Wager outlook.

As an atheist, you weren't a practicing atheist. You were an agitator with a religion of your own, which is projecting and spreading atheism. I used to call these folks "militant atheists" because, like when I was a teenager and left the Catholic church, I was ready to treat others the way I'd been treated (and seen others treated). This is not a healthy paradigm for leaving any community though and furthermore it repeats the sins of the past.

> Like, I frankly don’t give a damn about the truth or falsity of religion anymore. That’s not the point. It lets me act as if my life has meaning regardless of whether or not that’s true, which even when I directly reflect on it is a small amount of comfort insulating me from the yawning abyss of existential terror I felt throughout all of my 20s and half of my teens.

... and then you adopted the mindset of an actual atheist (one without religion), and then adopted a religion!

For what it's worth, I'm glad you're happy, that's really what matters. Maybe now that you have experience as someone without religion it gives you perspective as someone with faith. From what you've written, it sounds like that's the case.

A final thought (and opinion) that no one asked for: as an atheist I applaud the healthy exercise of and engagement with religion. The only time in which I object to religions or institutions is when they think their ideas are proper enough to be codified into law. For that, we have science and bureaucracy, of which religion can be a part of neither due to self-interested hegemony, which is an obvious conflict of interest.

I know the universe is a cold void but I find tons of meaning in seeing my family and friends be happy. From my relative perception of what's good and what matters, that's sufficient. Perpetuating mass delusion through religion doesn't seem like the better bet.

Replace the word "religion" by "communal life philosophy" and perhaps you'll start understanding its actual value.

I've been reading Stoic philosophers for some time now and it has helped me a lot. Christianity seems to take a lot from them and adds a mythical spin.

I think the biggest issue with religion stems from the fact that many people fail to understand religious texts are not factual they are metaphorical. Unfortunately, throughout history (and still today) this misunderstanding has been used and led to an incalculable number of heinous crimes.

It seems like you've really loaded up the term "atheist" here with a lot of negative connotation. It's unfortunate, but a lot of people seem to think this way. Truth is, everyone in the world is an atheist if you just take the word at its basic definition of "a lack of belief in a god or god(s)". That is, there are surely gods you've never even heard of and so you lack belief in them. The way you feel about those unknown gods is the same way I feel about all gods

But the label of atheist has been imbued with all sorts of negativity. So much so that some people hear it and think being an atheist actually makes someone evil, without any care for the well-being of other humans. Or they think the atheist must be miserable and unfeeling.

It's why I don't even use the term any more. I don't know if other people I'm talking to will have the same definition of the term that I do. If someone asks me about my religious beliefs, I simply say that I have none.

I mean, did you live through the new Atheism and then the Atheism+ movement of the 2000s and 2010s? I watched peoples lives get ruined, mentally unwell people commit suicide, people get arrested for embezzling donations, the works.

The “atheist community” (and it was oddly enough a real thing for awhile, with atheist church and everything! Look up Oasis on YouTube). It attracted people who were hedonistic and amoral and, in retrospect, went down in flames about how you’d have expected.

I’m not just some isolated Christian who has never met an atheist deriding them as some sort of bogeyman, I was friends with people in Poly Quads and met spouses who were bullied by their SO into being swingers, then watched 50 year olds behave like teenagers with all the consummate drama as well.

Once we had kids we totally removed ourselves from that situation and it fell apart a few years later, after the leader (who was originally a Christian pastor, I might add) got #metoo’ed for (surprise surprise) having sex with half the women in the organization.

> If pressed I guess I’ll say it’s unlikely to be true. But that’s not the point.

The problem is expecting the dogma of a thousands years old tradition and book to be absolutely true. There are things in the Bible and Christianity that are basically tall tales. For example, I doubt Jesus was immaculately conceived, but it makes for a great story. People make up stories about remarkable people. I believe Jesus was a real person who had world-changing insights, but I'm afraid a lot of cruft has built up around him and been carried forward as literal truth.

The challenge for an individual is separating the wheat from the chaff.

Most of my thoughts on the matter are derived from Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You.

I didn't read it, but I listened to an audiobook version of TKOGIWY about a year ago on a long road trip. I must have missed something, because my take-away was that the author was propounding the merits of of passivism, and anti-authoritarianism. I thought it was tedious. I remember being disappointed.

It is very dense and in a philosophical style. I'm not surprised it was tedious as an audiobook. I'd like to read it again myself. My takeaway was that Tolstoy believed Christ had ushered in a new era for man, philosophically. The previous eras were:

1. man serves self and family

2. man serves state and country

3. man serves god

He believed many of our problems are due to most of us still being stuck at level 2 of existence. A man at level 3 is immune to the problems of a man at level 2. For example, they couldn't even compel Jesus w/ bodily harm. They killed him, and what good did it do them?

He also argued that the shift to level 3 is inevitable and already in progress.

This is pretty adjacent to some of the stuff I've been thinking about as of recent. Maybe I'll give religion a try.

I am also a non-believer, but I think there is room for religion even for those who have a difficult time with the "fairy tale" aspect of it. Personally, I do not, but I'm thinking about giving it a shot.

The thing is that the stories in religious books help paint a picture of life and offer anecdotes on how one can navigate it. There is no need to look for enlightenment, just practical advice on how to deal with tough life situations and help you find motivation and strength to power through. Thousands of years of observing and documenting people's lives through stories and metaphors has value, even for us non-believers.

I think you'd even be surprised how many people who regularly attend church services don't actually believe in the mystic aspect of it all; it's the community and guidance that have the most value to them.

You can pick and choose philosophy and morals from a religion (or multiple religions) without buying the whole farm. To me, this seems like the right way to go. Cherry pick the good stuff and ignore the cruel parts and weird, supernatural stuff.

Church selection seems to play a big role. I don't know too much about it but from other commenters, there are apparently churches that emphasize the mysticism and paranormal side of Christianity, some that focus on the texts, some that mostly deal with hero-worship and the hero's origin story, some that are basically political Trump rallies, and some more laid back ones that are basically social/music clubs.

You really don't see the difference between popular fiction and cultural texts that have survived for thousands of years?

How do you feel about The Iliad, Plato's dialogues, the Mahabharata, Tao Te Ching, or the Epic of Gilgamesh? Do they also offer "no more meaning in your world" than modern fantasy novels?

I didn't think being an atheist meant closing ones mind to human culture. Guess I've been doing it wrong.

I think the person you replied to simply meant they found no spiritual significance in religious texts. That is, their ONLY value is either as a piece of literature or as a historical recording of culture.

None of these are religious texts (as in, the Bible, the Koran, etc) . What are you talking about?

Do you have any more evidence for some of the claims made in those texts than you do for the claims made in religious texts? Read them all as fiction, but they're still culturally significant and a lot can be learned by reading them, even if all you are learning is more about your fellow human's perspective.

The Dao De Jing, Mahabharata, and Plato's dialogues have been or are currently used as religious texts (the former two more then the latter, but the Neo-Platonism is/was a hell of a drug).

I disagree - I do not believe in any organized religion but I do like the Bible - almost all of Western society is built on it so there is a power in the words as you're tapping into something fundamental that's been bounced around culture for centuries. I dip into it occasionally and find some passage that really speaks to me.

Admittedly I do ignore parts of it - there's a lot of "wives should be obedient" stuff in there that has not aged well for instance - and I read it as God representing something like the Chinese Dao - IE the impersonal and immaterial laws of nature, the way that things unfold, and faith in God being an active version of the Stoic idea that you can't change the things you don't have control over, so just let it be.

To me, Theology is really philosophy + God. That's kinda the beauty of it, you can interpret it however you like or however it fits you at the time. If you don't want the + God right now, just consider the philosophy.

>Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view

Plato's The Cave allegory is relevant, even though no one would ever live in a cave like that and it's obviously fiction. Some people treat the Bible as a historical text, but most don't. Some people believe the earth is flat too, there's always that 10-20%.

Having said that, I tried reading the Bible but I couldn't get through all the begats. I do like hearing honest people discuss it though. Like anything, it can certainly be weaponized.

I think philosophy without faith is nice but doesn't have the same benefits at all. I think what makes religious people happier is the strong sense of community and offloading some of their existential angst to a third party.

I think it can be interesting to approach religious teachings from a perennialist mindset: what’s common between all religions.

There is a lot to learn about life and human nature in religion. You don’t have to believe in an afterlife or practice dogma to get something out of it.

In context, your reply sounds like a negative take, but I find it rather positive.

I've always found good fiction enlightening. There is no need to be so serious about it.

My biggest criticism of religion is the very boundary drawn between fiction and scripture: that adherents to a religion must treat fiction as if it is reality.

All too often, that means obsessing over obedience to a structure of rules/dogma, instead of confronting the reality right in front of us; like voting to restrict gay marriage so God will bless our country, instead of learning to empathize with people around us to become a better community.

> My biggest criticism of religion is the very boundary drawn between fiction and scripture: that adherents to a religion must treat fiction as if it is reality.

Agreed. This is the part that really gets under my skin… its been my understanding for most of my life that the bible specifically is full of allegory, not history. Yet, so many many of the “believers” I encounter don’t know what “allegory” means. The bible is their literal truth!

Tbh, knowing this isn’t helpful. It somehow makes me more paralyzed in dealing with literal believers. It always feels like they know they’re full of shit, but won’t admit it. There’s a disingenuousness to it that very deeply bothers me.

Often it's because while they may "know they're full of shit", they won't admit it to themselves.

Being able to think critically of religion means being agnostic or atheist.

My assertion is that it's not you who is paralyzed, but anyone who cannot criticize their own position.

This is a good take, thanks! It feels like their paralysis is contagious, which is endlessly frustrating.

If no one has tried it yet, it might be worth being the first one.

From what I can tell, the only group claiming to know what will happen in the future are religious conservatives who want gay marriage outlawed. It's their claim that homosexual unions will lead to a bad societal outcome, and that claim is based purely on religious dogma.

The difference between Harry Potter and most religious texts is that the religious texts are often the result of thousands of years of evolutionary processes which refine them, and the people who have followed them have survived/thrived.

It doesn't matter if the Bible/Koran/whatever is a fact or not. Religious beliefs/texts are an extension of human evolution and should be seen that way. Questioning their wisdom in helping humans thrive is like questioning the value of arms.

Questioning specific things seems easy enough.

Like proscriptions on pork or seafood; we have a pretty good understanding of the consequences of eating pork and don't necessarily have to rely on something that was a useful rule of thumb absent that knowledge.

>> often the result of thousands of years of evolutionary processes which refine them >> Religious beliefs/texts are an extension of human evolution and should be seen that way.

If this is true, does it mean that churches all over the world did a big disservice to the holy books and stopped the evolution by creating institutions dedicated to preserve text of this books in unchanged form argumenting that those books literally are word of God and thus cannot be changed?

You might be aware of the fact that different factions/sects exist within the major religions, similar to how humans physically evolve separate traits. Some of those off-shoots will be more successful than others.

I'm sure you have some great ideas about living. Let's check the reproductive rate of the people who follow your ideas in a thousand years.

I was not suggesting that evolution does not exists at all in religions but rather that is actively fight back by its participants.

Your DNA does the same. It tries to reduce "mistakes" and the mistakes are the evolution. And it's generally a very slow process.

A friend of mine stated this as such: "every human able to reason has a religion-shaped hole in them; and that spot will be filled with something whether or not the human expects it to or wants it to."

I submit that plenty of religious thought patterns (things and systems you are not allowed to question the wisdom of, obsequious deference to authority, etc.) exist outside the halls of churches. PG's essay on heresy comes to mind.

IMO, one benefit of religion that is difficult to capture anywhere else is that it creates a mutually supportive community. I personally can't get over sacrificing my own intellectual honesty for the sake in group acceptance, but in most cases, I do think this is a trade off worth making. Secular Jews seem to be able to have it both ways, though I'm not sure this is something easily replicable.

> This advice simply doesn't work if the recipient is an atheist.

Then try Buddhism? More of a philosophy than a religion, and seems to have hit on the idea thousands of years ago that most problems in humanity are to do with mental illness of one sort or another.

Buddhism is definitely a religion with a specific epistemology, claims on the supernatural (karma, cycle of samsara), manifestations of the divine (Bodhisattva), rituals, chants and prayers. Some Buddhist sects can be pretty radical, even.

Buddhism as conceptualized in the western world is a marketing strategy that appeals to people thanks to the fact the Buddhism is exotic, the same reason Christian symbolism is à la mode in Asia (just see how many anime have Christian themes). If you could repackage Christianity to convince these people that it is new, exotic and exciting they would convert immediately.

By the way, there are philosophical traditions, both in Buddhism and Christianity, that reject any supernatural claim and see religion as a useful but not true moral framework, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

P.S.: I'm an atheist. I'm not defending a religion or another.

> f you read enough fiction on a shared topic, you'll be able to pull the same number of 'enlightening' quotes from those books as religious people can from their own sacred tomes.

In fact, Harry Potter And The Sacred Text does exactly that!

I’ve known plenty of people who get a ton of meaning out of fictional works too. Just because you view it as fictional doesn’t mean it can’t have meaning.

I hold spirituality to be a choice to hold things sacred. Almost everyone holds something sacred, whether it's family bonds or whatever. You can also choose to hold more things sacred, even the entire world, without believing in divinities.

> Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones

I have been downvoted many times (not sure why?) for stating this on HN, but I will state it again:

It's sad that this line of thinking has taken over the modern time. We now have "science", so we don't need any of that silly stuff like "philosophy" or "art" or "religion". All can be explained through the scientific method and all other branches of human intellect are null and avoid.

Of course, this comes from the new Atheists who influenced a lot of the younger generation years a go when they started but their ideas actually stems from older philosophers who shaped the modern day thinking.

Mainly Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche (who was also influenced by Feuerbach), Jean Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault.

For example, What did Jean-Paul Sartre say? "Existence precedes essence" and you can _clearly_ see how this has affected the modern Atheism mentality in the 21st century.

If existence precedes essence, then everything is relative and nothing can be objective and absolute; thus to claim things such as objective morality in the way that religion does is meaningless.

Don't forget that Sartre said: "If God exists, I can't be free, but I am free. Therefore God does not exist". Once again, if you look carefully enough, you absolutely see this in the modern world. The New Atheists for example, took all their ideas and spread them from these philosophers. What was Hitchen's famous quote? He would constantly regurgitate Karl Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people" which again.. is rooted from Sartre philosophy.

There is a great talk about this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQcm0Mi5To

More to it, to anyone who claims religious people are intellectual inept, I would simply challenge you to read any of the material written by the intellectuals of the tradition. For example, for Christianity they would be: Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas or John Henry Newman and tell me you're dealing with someone who has suspended his critical faculties.

You are welcome to disagree with them of course, but to claim that we should simply replace these materials with math books is disingenuous.

Just my 2c.

> we don't need any of that silly stuff like "philosophy" or "art" or "religion"

Op didn't say anything about art or philosophy. You added that stuff in. Atheism doesn't preclude art or philosophy.

> All can be explained through the scientific method

As opposed to "all can be explained through God"? How is that any better?

>> More to it, to anyone who claims religious people are intellectual inept, I would simply challenge you to read any of the material written by the intellectuals of the tradition

That's a straw man - we all are idiots sometimes (I believe that most of times but that just me) and this little silly observation can be easily used to explain how otherwise rational and intelligent person can hold two opposite views in their had. Our rational abilities are greatly exaggerated by people like You who believe that there are magical others that can be rational all the time in all aspects of their life. Those people believe in God because they want to believe (by which I mean its an emotional decision and not an logical one) and the logic is there only to rationalize what their emotions are telling them. I suspect that if medicine will get advanced enough we will see finally that by just playing with memory and emotional state of person we can easily turn the most avid believer into Christopher Hitchens (and vice versa).

Religion would be ok to me and, I’d imagine, OP if it presented itself as philosophy or fairy tales that you could take or leave. Or a part of human history like medieval knights.

It’s a curios byproduct of human inquisitiveness and that’s it. it shouldn’t have any special rights or claims to have a deeper understanding of the universe that would even give certain people (priests etc) to be the judges of other people’s actions.

The world wouldn’t succumb into chaos if all churches / mosques etc . were gone in an instant and people forgot they existed as anything but pretty buildings.

There were of course smart and kind people at all times and they happened to use the vehicles of religion some long long time ago when it seemed like the best logic toolbox for the mind

No need for

> Knowing that HN is generally against it, I say it anyway

I am actually on the contrarian side of you, but thanks for putting you out there. I understand and respect your point and everything, but there is one thing, that I want to put out regarding what you said. To state the following, is quite problematic:

> Religious scholars have actually been the best psychologists but are generally dismissed by non-believers.

Without going into detail, for every profession, there are people who are good and bad at it. This has nothing to do with any background or anything. The difference with psychologists and priests/ missionaries/ etc. is, that one is certified and the other is not necessarily certified. This makes a huge difference in liability of the term/ role and it's rather dangerous to put them in the same bag. And I don't think to make this distinction is not dismissive.

Religion for a modern person with the easy access to the knowledge we now have is effectively just being intellectually lazy. Some people do need help right now, but I don’t think religions are any better than other addiction resources. AA gets a pass for me because I know atheists that used it and the religious component is easy to ignore. AA works because of the group and accountability, not faith in some higher power.

Anyway, not to be insulting, but it is all a bunch of made up nonsense for a time when we did not have actual explanatory knowledge for our existence and universe. We do now. Religion and its institutions are dying out in industrialized nations because they have lost their claim to having all the answers.

Are you saying that we (collectively) or at least you know why we exist and the meaning of life?

In broad strokes, yep.

I'm an atheist, yet I don't think science can answer why we exist and what is the meaning of life. I think those questions are syntactically valid but semantically invalid. We kind of (in the 'broad strokes' you say) think () we know how we got here, how life got started, etc. But why? How do you know that? It's an honest question because, again, I don't think that question makes sense so I'd love to know your take on it.

() I say we think we know because I'm actually agnostic (I typically say 'atheist' because it stops some conversion attempts I'm not looking for from even starting, judging by your two comments on this thread I reckoned I can give you the honest answer as you won't try to convert me into anything!) and I believe we can only know what we conclude from the information collected by our senses and our thinking process after that, but an error in either the information collection (think of how the first scientific estimates of the age of the planet were off by a long shot on account of choosing a poor thing to measure -- I'm thinking about the work of Halley here) or in the thought process would result in bad knowledge, and it seems to me there's a part of the scientific-minded population right now that has a blind spot for this: there's overconfidence in science.

A fair response to my blithe and confident answer. In general, though, we have figured enough out to understand our origin well enough to rule out religious theories in our existence. To reduce things the way you did is a denial of progress at some level, while couching it in caution against trusting science too far. Our first bridges sucked, now they are better. Our first stabs at cosmology were not much better than another religion, now they are better. Is there some bad knowledge kicking around in science? Of course. That is why I said in “broad strokes”.

To cut to the chase: our brains are just piles of chemistry. There is no meaning. We make it up, and that is ok. “Why” we exist is coincidence and millions of years of happy little evolutionary experiments blindly conducted by nature. Maybe there is a Deus ex Machina in there, but for our purposes does it really matter?

> “Why” we exist is coincidence and millions of years of happy little evolutionary experiments blindly conducted by nature.

I'm not religious either, but I always find this hard to believe. What are the odds nature happened to provide all the building blocks for us to be here to question our existence? It seems far more likely that (i) nothing would exist, (ii) the universe wouldn't have the right combination of properties and forces to maintain its own existence, or (iii) it would be a boring universe filled with a couple of basic elements capable of producing nothing of interest. Instead, we have complex life and we're here building iPhones and spaceships.

For that reason I can't believe there's a single universe and through coincidence it happened to contain everything needed for life. Even if we go with the multiverse theory and a near infinite number of universes, I still find it difficult to believe. You can argue the universe is filled with a bunch of garbage and we're assigning meaning and value to that garbage because it's us, and we want to feel important. However, I really don't feel like anything (and certainly not something as complex as us) should exist in the first place. I want to say it's too much of a coincidence to happen by chance, but at the same time, I don't have a better answer as to why we're here.

I think you are struggling with something I thought a lot about too. It is difficult for our brains to actually internalize the /immense/ amount of time evolutionary processes have been happening. It is so long and vast and our brains are barely good with comprehending hours and days. It is a mind bogglingly loooong time. Like really, really, really long. A lot can happen in a few billion years :)

I understand evolution and the time frame. I have no trouble with that concept. What I find difficult to believe is that a viable universe started in the first place to give evolution the opportunity to succeed.

Infinitesimally low probability doesn't imply impossibility. If the event is in the probability space then it can certainly happen, no matter how serendipitous we may find it.

What is so remarkable about the iPhone or the spaceship? Why is it worthy of note when compared to any other phenomena in the universe? What brings you to make a distinction between a live human body and an inanimate celestial body?

> What is so remarkable about the iPhone or the spaceship? What brings you to make a distinction between a "live" human body and an "inanimate" celestial body?

I'm not trying to say that humans are more important or meaningful than a rock. I agree with you that nothing inherently has meaning and it's an attribute we create and assign. I'm only saying that we're intelligent beings that are capable of some rather advanced tasks, such as creating a iPhone. In my opinion, it seems far less likely for us to exist than either nothing, or a simpler universe without us.

Yes, it's not impossible, just like I could throw a handful of sand in that air that falls to the ground and happens to write the story of my life. It's so unlikely though that I can't help but wonder if it wasn't just chance that we're here.

We agree on the meaning then! :) This reminded me of the intro to “A universe from nothing”, where the author says (paraphrasing) “why is there life is the wrong question, but we can try to answer how is there life?”

Can you elaborate on what is meant by "the wrong question"?

Not OP, but I think I can add my 2c here.

It means (pun intended) that the meaning is not self sustaining term in our reality - there is no absolute meaning outside of our perception. There is only relative meaning (as in what kind of meaning my perception assigns to things that can be observed by me - simply put - we create our own meaning).

It can be simplified further to there is no meaning or the meaning does not exist but in my opinion this is oversimplification and reeks of nihilism.

So if You look at things from the point of view described above the "why" question (which can be paraphrased to "what is the meaning") is wrong.

I agree with this answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31436469

I also wanted to add that it's not that I think it is wrong to ask such questions, only that I think they're wrong when considered from within our system of knowledge, so I find them unanswerable.

Kind of how like "what kind of food does that digital computer like?" is a wrong question.

You're engaging with religion only as an explanatory mechanism for physical occurrences, whereas the weight of the argument for and against religion are on philosophical and logical grounds. It's not a strawman, as many people have used God to fill the gaps in our understanding of the physical world, but it's entirely irrelevant to the really interesting discussions on the subject. If you want to see what religious people are on about, and why some scientifically literate people continue to have faith you need to understand those arguments.

I mean, I grew up in a very religious environment and have met and had long discussions with religious scholars. You can couch it in as much sentimentalism and philosophy as you want, but to me it almost always falls apart when you dig to the real roots of religious scholarhsip and philosophy. Ultimately these people decide to have some level of faith in a thing that is contradictory to all evidence we have. It is an interesting thought experiment, but I can't find any principled reasoning behind it all at the bottom. Yes there are a lot of religious scholar types who will agree with all of science, and they continuously reform their belief system and philosophy around the scientific evidence. It is like having a belief system that wobbles and wiggles like Jello. Not to say that science has all the answers and is purely axiomatic, but at least that is its goal. Religious scholarship has a completely different agenda in my opinion and starts from a very different place when it tries to reason and I fundamentally disagree that it is a "really interesting discussion" beyond how people get sucked into believing it all. Without being dismissive, I do think I have a basic grasp of those arguments and I find them wholly lacking. A lot of it comes down to things their parents taught them and their inability to get rid of their deep seated beliefs about the nature of existence.

The meaning of life is to reproduce, which implies to survive until that age at least. Without this, there would be no continuous life and the "meaning" question cannot even be asked, as it's a question asked by living things. Or only one living thing that we know of.

The why question has no answer nor will it ever have an answer. Life doesn't need justification or orchestration. It's a freak accident of molecules. It could have never happened and it can end by means of a disaster and the universe will happily continue without it.

As to what a human can/should to with their life other than not dying and trying to reproduce, that's an entirely cultural question. Cultural is a fancy word for: we made it up.

> Religious scholars have actually been the best psychologists but are generally dismissed by non-believers.

Citation not required, as long as you believe, assumedly?

> It’s always best to find your own path according to the religion of your parents and environment.

That ship sailed a while ago, my parents aren't religious, and I don't know any religious people.

How do I get the psychological benefits without having belief? Let me lay a story on you:

I fell in love with this girl who I had known on/off for a long time. I found out she was an escort (quietly but distinctly confirmed payment-for-sex) in her spare time (she was a student when this all happened). This was really upsetting and had me very distraught. I simultaneously could see a life with her, but also felt disgusted at the escorting.

I wished I could speak with my grandfather about it. I knew he'd know what to tell me. But he had recently passed away. "Well, what did I like about Grandpa? Could I find a substitute? I need like, an old person who has reliable wisdom and experience, not just some wino who has hung on. Why isn't this a thing? An old person a community can approach for advice on..."

"Oh I think I need a priest."

When I went looking for one though, it was all about accepting Jesus into my heart and spiritual learnings and miracles that I must accept literally happened, etc. Real hard to find the "old wise person who can help me navigate this thing".

There’s this Western conception of Buddhism that stripes away a lot of the religious beliefs—Siddhartha wasn’t divine at all, there is no Amitabha, Ksitigarbha is a folk tale. The emphasis is all on practice. Meditation, the 4 noble truths, Middle Way, etc.

This doesn’t represent true Buddhism like Asians would recognize it, but I think it does highlight how you can build a practice and adopt the world outlook without the supernatural.

A low-level Zen inspired practice may be what you’re looking for

> Religious scholars have actually been the best psychologists

Any sources that will back this claim? Oh wait, you don't need facts. Do you give this sort of unsolicited religious advice to everyone or do you specifically choose people who are troubled?

They are just stating their opinion in an 100% neutral way. You are free to ignore it. People give "unsolicited advice" here all the time. It is a forum where people post things for others to read. Why do people get so easily upset whenever the word "religion" is displayed, heard or even implied?

Religion is quite a stirring theme, don't you think? I try really hard to avoid getting triggered (meant in a neutral way). It's easy to repress something, but that's not the point - people turn cynical when this happens and it just postpones the problem. One have to go deeper to really let go.

>Any sources that will back this claim? Oh wait, you don't need facts. Do you give this sort of unsolicited religious advice to everyone or do you specifically choose people who are troubled?

I mean, there's a fairly strong Darwinistic argument for the validity of certain religions. Very few belief systems have survived a hostile environment for anywhere near as long as the big religions.

If religious belief systems are "wrong" (in the sense of being useful for navigating the world, not in the sense of satisfying certain conditions of symbolic logic and reasoning), then why have these religions triumphed over secularism time and time again?

I'd still consider myself an atheist, but even then I'd be careful to be so dismissive of belief systems that have proven themselves over the course of millennia to be incredibly powerful, enlightening and enriching.

After reading through all the Dune books, I built up quite some awe for the catholic church. I'm not a believer, but this is fascinating how such an institution can survive for such a long time. I'm really wondering what happed behind closed doors or just things that we don't know that they pulled off to keep power. This is not meant as a critique.

> I mean, there's a fairly strong Darwinistic argument for the validity of certain religions

I always find it ironic when the "Facts and Reason" branch of atheism pretends that we would all be driving flying cars in a peaceful utopia if it weren't for pesky religion.

> If religious belief systems are "wrong" (in the sense of being useful for navigating the world, not in the sense of satisfying certain conditions of symbolic logic and reasoning), then why have these religions triumphed over secularism time and time again?

To be fair, a lot of them spread by the sword. Convert or we kill your tribe. Some of them explicitly call out in their texts that it's OK to forcibly convert or murder non-believers, an attribute which is, I'm sure, a helpful "evolutionary gene" for the religion's spread. There are also religions with non-violent, but still coercive conversion, where there are non-death-related social consequences for nonbelievers.

> why have these religions triumphed over secularism time and time again

I'm intrigued to understand your definition of "triumphed", as given the rest of the post I'm assuming you're not referring to the genocide of non-believers, which is, of course, precisely how the major religions achieved such longevity.

Just because something is good for the group, doesn't mean it's good for an individual.

That's a very Christian idea. Christianity is (was) the religion of slaves, and outcasts. The whole ethic is that the individual is divinely (infinitely) valuable, despite circumstances on earth.

It doesn't take much of a leap to go from "I am valuable [because G-d says so]", to "I deserve to be equal to my fellow man, free to make my own choices".

Weird approach to attack the substance of this sentence, since psychology is the most vague of sciences.

There's no substance in the sentence I quoted. That's what I pointed out. I haven't expressed any opinions regarding psychology.

> since psychology is the most vague of sciences

But since you make this claim, we can talk about it. So what's your advice? See religious scholars instead of board certified psychologists?

My advice is to keep an open mind to the possibility of someone having some level of wisdom without having an official degree™

And yes, I used the word wisdom on purpose :)

Depends on how you understand 'science'. I wouldn't describe empirical science as 'vague'. It doesn't aim for the core of a thing like other fields do. I mean, things are changing, but the goal for most psychologists is to help people.

To be fair, the parent made the claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.

If you read psychological works by ancient religious scholars you’ll understand. They delve extremely deeply and insightfully inside one’s soul. True: they didn’t use Chi-squared tests so you’ll not find that. But have you actually read anything of this?

You're making an assumption that 'they understood'. Humans have a lot of insight, but at the end of the day a deep understanding of everything is mathematically impossible.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Nihilism.

>psychological works by ancient religious scholars

Could you recommend some?

I don’t know your background but the Midrash.

Unnecessarily aggressive and rude. This just reads like you feel superior to religious people

I have no issues with religious people. I do however have issues with "missionary" types popping up around people who are vulnerable, trying to convince them with completely baseless claims of wellness.

Considering the vast majority of people who have overcome addictions with the help of religion and a religious community, "completely baseless claims of wellness" is pretty exaggerated no?

Any citation on the vast majority of people who have overcome convictions have done it with religion? I don't think court ordered AA really counts.

This seems pretty interesting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759672/ . I didn't read the full paper, but based off the introduction it seems to be a study of how religion helps people overcome addition.

The study was done by someone from the Institute for Studies of Religion. I am not convinced.

My comment was in no way missionary. In fact I didn’t even mention one specific religion and suggested that you investigate your ancestors instead and find your path.

Which morality is that?

Individuals love to look at individual bits of morality in said books in a choose your own adventure exploration. As much as the moral certainty says be nice to others, it will also contain many bits that are highly questionable and would deeply conflict with others views.

In general secular psychologists don't come with the violent historical baggage that religions do.

>Which morality is that?

Who cares? It gets drug addicts clean and criminals reformed.

And turns them in to extremists that attack and kill others? It turns out there are many cares in which system of morality one chooses.

>And turns them in to extremists that attack and kill others?

I'd be curious to see the stats on that.

Secular psychologists don't ask you to believe in deities for them to work

There is no more moral certainty in religion than on the Sunday paper.

It makes him sound like a 16 year old who just smoked his first Christopher Hitchens.

I’m sure I’ve read a few dozen of the same old AA debates on HN, but, yeah it worked for my old man.

AA, in particular the serenity prayer, has at least some overlap with the more tech friendly pursuit of Stoic philosophy.

“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”

Quoted in Robert Sapolsky's book "Why Zebra don't get ulcers" on stress (highly recommended).

It's a nice quote because it is a bit more interesting than common popular wisdom that exists across humanity and in all religions simply telling you : "Accept what you cannot change"

That is often elided even more by "Accept your situation" or even "Obey" providing great convenience to the powers that be.

My issue with AA is that people can seek attention by relapsing. Going cold turkey and never drinking again is the simple solution and it doesn't require all the drama.

This is actually dangerous advice for a lot of forms of addiction... You MUSTN'T quit certain substances cold turkey, especially after prolonged abuse, because the intake of them are part of the body's homeostasis.

It's also very inconsiderate... Addiction generally has much deeper roots than just "craving the high" since it can be maladaptive coping mechanisms people develop due to traumatic childhoods (or later life, but less likely). Eg, substance abuse/addiction is commonly found in people who suffer from CPTSD.

The high isn't "I'm having the time of my life" for these people, but a a way to disconnect and silence their brain demons.

Also, a lot of people don't know they were abused or neglected as children (becaus it's "their normal") and then go through life as struggling with all sorts of internalised shit.

Edit: Also a very important thing I want to put out there: if anyone struggling with addition reads this, addiction isn't something to be ashamed of or to put yourself down over. It might not be your fault. But most addictions are maladaptive, and the sooner resolved the more you will get out of life. Don't be ashamed of yourself, and don't hate yourself for it

You are reading a lot more into my comment that isn't there. I am specifically talking about alcohol as the comment is about AA. AA generally recommends stopping cold turkey, so you are also contradicting AA.

I was an alcoholic and now I am not. I don't think it is easy but it is relatively simple. A lot of stuff that is glommed onto recovery from alcoholism obscures the fact that you have to stop using the drug, that is fundamental. Anything that unintentionally encourages relapse is not useful.

Then AA is wrong.

For many drinkers, suddenly stopping can be life threatening, causing seizures and convulsions.

I also stopped drinking, effectively cold turkey - but I wasn't a very heavy drinker, just a habitual one. However, I rejected AA as far too prescriptive in its approach.

For anyone reading this who is considering quitting alcohol I recommend r/stopdrinking on reddit, which is an incredibly friendly and supportive place where people practice and discuss a variety of methods.

For some heavy and consistent drinkers, they should check themselves into a hospital or clinic when they quit. But the vast majority of alcoholics will not develop delerium tremens when they quit. I personally worried about DT when I was drinking a six pack per day and used it as an excuse to never miss a day of drinking. I am probably not alone in my neurosis so telling people that they are likely to develop severe alcohol withdrawal is probably not a good way to help them to quit.

Surmounting all of this is very much like a lot of difficult tasks - often made more difficult by well-meaning people who want to point out all the difficulties you hadn't considered yet. What we need is more resources like: do you drink this much? Go to this clinic when you quit. Worried? Then quit sooner rather than later when you are drinking even more.

I think I agree with your intent and sentiment, and you're definitely right that people make excuses when it comes to quitting (and relapsing).

But IMO more often than not, we should't be flippant or dismissive about the excuses (for relapses or for continuing to use).

For some people, maladaptive coping—and all its consequences—is a cheap price to pay compared to facing a sober existence when unequipped to deal with it.

So even if they quit cold-turkey (or just quit), they won't necessarily improve their quality of life because they don't know why they got into addiction in the first place. However, going to support groups can help meet people. Those who struggle with similar root causes of their addiction tend to cluster as well, and that can (indirectly, and with a bit of luck) help identify root causes. That was what happened with me, and I'm forever grateful to support groups.

In my case I was an adult child of narcissistic parents (ACoNs)[1] and I struggled with C-PTSD[2] all my life (I self-misdiagnosed myself many times with depression, autism, younameit) and I'll live with it forever. In a twisted and perverse way, I think drug abuse and addiction—with all the indirect suffering they caused—also saved my life. If it weren't for drugs, literally wouldn't have had any coping mechanism whatsoever. So, in cases like mine quitting cold-turkey means that the withdrawal symptoms just compounded compounded with our emotional dysregulation.

Also I want to finish with this: I am really glad you managed to turn your life around and quit using. I'm happy that you took steps to improve your life, and as cheesy as it sounds: I'm proud of you! Thank you for sharing your story; I know talking about these things isn't easy.

Stay strong!

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_parent [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_post-traumatic_stress_...

edit: wordsmithing

Simple isn't easy. Losing weight is simple, just eat less than what your caloric expenditure per day is. It's still hard as fuck and just telling someone who has issues with eating "just eat less, it's simple" is not helpful at all.

Going cold turkey and never doing X is the simple solution for any addiction, now get addicted to anything and try that out...

I agree it is not easy, but for me it is better to approach it simply. It may be that the best way to eat less for an individual is to fast, or to eat five small meals, or whatever program they use. But advising people that it is next to impossible has never worked.

I have been addicted to cigarettes and alcohol. Going cold turkey is essential for getting over the addictions. Never doing them again makes relapse unlikely. These are simple facts. AA says you can't really achieve independence you have to replace it with meetings and prayer. I say you can get over it. And I have experience with people who go back and forth to AA relapsing, and so how will they ever get free?

Interesting take. Is it from experience or an ego boost by comparing yourself to those who have relapsed ?

Saying

> Going cold turkey and never drinking again is the simple solution and it doesn't require all the drama

is very impolite to everyone who has ever struggled with any addiction.

Coming at this as both someone who’s addicted to tobacco and has ADHD, I’ve spent a good chunk of my life having people naively (at best) or condescendingly (at worst) tell me things like:

- you just need to quit cold turkey, how hard can it possibly be to not do something?

- have you tried focusing?

- you should try making todo lists!

- if you would just sit still and listen, you could do better on your homework!

While I do agree that the parent wasn’t the most polite, comments like yours definitely fall somewhere in the naive-condescending spectrum and I read the parent’s comment as trying to figure which end of that spectrum it came from.

I agree with you that telling people to do things that do not work for them is not helpful. However, there is no substance you can stop taking to cure your ADHD.

Any advice for an alcoholic that does not include "stop drinking" is not good advice. Every alcohol-related problem stems from the alcohol. It may not be everything needed for their recovery, but it has to be the basis. AA at least gets this right. However, AA paints a picture of addicts as people who are unable to ever get this aspect of their life under control. Unlike non-drinkers, AA alcoholics are always fighting the demon Alcohol. The organization does not believe in full recovery. Sometimes I have read a no-true-Scotsman formulation which says that if you can survive sober without AA, then you were not really an alcoholic. How is this helpful?

I think the proof is really in the pudding. AA has a lot of former members who still do not drink. These are people who quit drinking and eventually found the meetings unhelpful.

I live without fear of relapse. This is because I know that I will never "need" alcohol again.

To address the other side of what you are talking about, I hope that one day I will be able to live properly with ADHD. As of yet, we have not found an approach that generally works. Stimulants are helpful but they are a band-aid on the problem and have side effects. Behavioral therapy is helpful, too, albeit a bit mild in effect. I hope that when a good approach is developed, I will have the sense to try it.

It is a rather controversial statement. I have more consideration for a controversial statement from somebody who knows what he is talking about (and provide arguments/anecdote) than from someone making a moral judgment. It was rather a challenge to your statement with a conditional diss to force you two elaborate.

That's like the simple solution for depression: think happy thoughts. Addiction rewires your brain so that simply stopping is a very heavy lift. Not impossible, but relapses are common and there's usually drama, AA or no.

>alcoholics are just doing it for attention

What an incredibly garbage take. Not genetics, having alcoholic family, none of that? You just distill it to that?

I actually did not write that, thank you. A "garbage take" is, for example, when you put words into someone's mouth and use that for outrage.

An alternate to religion is Meditation. IMO, a lot of spiritual practices share very similar mental mechanics (eg mantras and prayers, various forms of fasting, support networks, etc)

Got anything more specific to recommend? I'd like to read the main books of the main religions eventually out of personal culture, but they won't get to the top of the reading pile any time soon. Meanwhile, I'm sure procrastination, motivation and discipline are behaviors that religious scholars had to develop even in a pre-Internet world so I'm sure there are interesting takes written on the subject. I recall some reknown writer from a few centuries (like 16th/17th century?) writing about his struggles with procrastination and how he eliminated distractions (lol!) from his working environment.

The ancient Christian monks battled against procrastination, lack of motivation, etc.... they called it "Acedia" aka "The noon-day devil"...

Apparently the monks felt a huge urge just to sleep, rest and abandon their study around midday... it was a fairly well recognised psycho-spiritual problem in the middle ages for some monastic orders...

Thanks a lot for the terminology, looking at Google's first page for "Christian monk procrastination" I'm not sure I would've found it if I even looked for it.

They're interesting inputs for Marginalia's search engine FWIW.

Check out this essay https://renovare.org/articles/self-denial-without-self-hatre...

Whereas self-indulgence is procrastination and self-denial is altruism & giving yourself (time and what not) to others?

Islam also has significant things to say on the issue. Hinduism and Buddhism likely have insights as well.

Zoroastrianism may also have something to offer here. Maybe it's time to revive it.

Zoroastrianism is still practiced. I met one just the other day. A quick google backs up your point though, there might only be a couple hundred thousand left.

It’s possible. I only mention what I’m familiar with.

Buddhism also has a well developed psychological system that everyone seems to ignore

I truly think Buddhism has the best offer here on addictive behavior. Detachment is a main topic, their teaching can be consumed in "secular" way (with needed to believe in any unseen phenomena), the teaching does not place much outside of oneself.

And for atheists like me, you can still learn a lot from religions. I got a lot out of Alain de Botton's "Religion for Atheists" https://www.librarything.com/work/11370617/book/89008159

I'm not against religion, but you just want to add you don't need religion to get what I think is the good core of religions: healing stories and narratives, texts, mantras, rituals that help you in the moment, a community which shares your perspective and in the end, an explanation for existential dread, horrible things happenings and a way to get meaning.

You can find it in humanism, you can find it in secular philosophy, you can get therapy, you can find it in social political communities, it's in many places. You can even get some old bearded dude tell you what to do if that's what you need.

Religion is just one way to have faith.

Sure. Religion is a framework that you have to accept. There may be other perfectly valid frameworks, no doubt.

The difference is that religion is usually a known & tried way to run a society. It may be not perfect, but otherwise old religions wouldn't survive.

Meanwhile many modern replacements usually don't have any longevity. Maybe one of them will survive but only time will tell.

I thinking you're confusing causality here.

The vast majority have staying power because of two primary things. Have children, teach those children your religion. In the days before mass education and when huge numbers of children died in early age making this a memnatic was an important way for societal continuation.

This says nothing about it's continued usefulness after a paradigm shift.

There's no paradigm shift yet. Procreation is still necessary for societal continuation as long as BigTech can't print babies out of nothing.

The bible is a collection of many books and resources by various authors. It contains valuable ideas and experience which have survived the centuries. Many religious people however like it to be a 'single black & white truth of the all-mighty invisible ghost who says you are a guilty person'.

For me the bible is the same as any other (old) book where people write about their life experience. A good example is 'Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius. There is a lot of wisdom in it, and I have read it more than once over the years. It makes you reflect on your own life and decisions you make.

I've never had anything against religion and know it is good for my family but there's just no way I'll ever get over my skepticism so it's not a choice. I think most nonreligious people are the same

>I think most nonreligious people are the same.

Having spent two years as a missionary in a majority atheist country (the Czech Republic) I'd have to say that wasn't my experience. For most Czechs, it seemed to be more of a general apathy about religion and the idea of God, not any serious skepticism or an active choice not to believe.

christianity is most certainly not the solution, therapy is

I’m going to start by absolutely agreeing with you on the second half: I have had direct personal contact with a number of addicts over the years, and in virtually all cases it started (and generally continued to be) as a way to escape or numb some kind of unaddressed trauma or other emotional pain. Victims of (childhood or adult) abuse, parental rejection for whatever reason, etc. Additionally, people who I wouldn’t categorize as addicts but rather as… acute substance abusers. The people who don’t drink all week but go to the bar with some friends and end up drinking a dozen beer.

Therapy has changed a lot of people around me’s lives for the better. Indisputably. I have seen 20-year alcoholics change virtually overnight when their abusers are finally caught and the addict-victim goes and talks it through with a therapist.

Where I’m going to disagree, though, is that this is a black and white “Christianity or therapy” issue. I’m coming at this pragmatically; I haven’t been to church in almost 20 years now and religion is virtually non-existent in my life. There’s two things, though, with religion in general that can be hugely useful for someone struggling with addiction and/or substance abuse:

- Therapy-like religious guidance. Many denominations of Christianity (and other religions, but I am not particularly familiar with the exact customs) encourage you to share your burdens with either the leadership or broader community.

- Community itself. Beyond the primary “you are destroying your body” issues with addiction, one of the worst secondary effects is the social effects. When you have a substance abuse problem, “ordinary” people will start to distance from you. This can either end up with you just isolating from the world and getting lonelier (amplifying the problem) or seeking community with whoever you can find who won’t reject you (other people with substance abuse problems… amplifying the problem)

Religion can provide these things and while it’s not for me, I have a hard time dismissing it outright. Especially since we have, as society has become more secular, mostly failed at establishing accessible community institutions that provide these things. One of the most interesting things to me is that almost every other community is generally focused around either specific activities (eg a rock climbing gym, martial arts, bird watching, knitting) or specific professions (eg software developer meet-ups). Church is one of the few places in the world that I’m likely to encounter a very broad cross-section of society.

That all being said, quality varies dramatically. There are some churches that are, to me, completely toxic and have strayed far from “bringing light into this world”.

YMMV, but it works for some people and provides exactly what they need to heal.

I have many family and friends that are christians, and was raised christian. It's a full fledged government-subsidized cult, maybe a benign cult, but a cult nonetheless.

I think you'll find that that varies dramatically from denomination to denomination. When I was a kid, my grandparents and parents took us to a Southern Baptist church. I agree, 100%, and I'm not even sure that I'd qualify that with the word "benign" :)

In university, I dated a Lutheran (in Canada, there's two "sub-Lutheran" organizations, she was a part of the "more welcoming one") and it was a night and day difference. Not to go too far into theology, but these folks were some of the most "Christ-like" folks I have ever met. They really embodied the "be good to each other" concepts and strongly rejected the more evangelical/recruiting position that many churches take; their philosophy was "be good people, treat others kindly, feel free to have a conversation about your religion if someone asks, but don't try to guilt/shame/whatever, just be a good person."

I'm actually surprised this morning to be defending churches somewhat. It's a tragedy: the worst kind of Christians, to me, are also the most prominent and vocal. From my own understanding of the Bible and basic theology, I absolutely agree that many denominations are cult-like and have also lost their way from the teachings they purport to embody.

Meanwhile there's folks like the Lutherans I hung out with who, for lack of a better turn of phrase, are actually bringing light into the world. These folks get painted with the same brush as the... crazies.

my experience is with Catholicism. you dont have to do too much research to see where that went wrong.

Lol yeah...

Religious beliefes provide a strong moral compass as a semi-coherent set that lets you define stances about a lot of things in your life without having to gs through the hassle and difficulties of building them. As long as it's a serious belief and adherence to the provided guidelines and not just posturing used to justify decadent conducts.

I am not religious and personally i think is best to develop this on your own than taking a prepackaged system, but the utility and practicality of having ssmething already done and battle-tested is undeniable.

Just like you don't need to reinvent the wheel and write a complex library on your own when there's one available, sometimes is best to just use a prepackaged beliefs set and moral system to follow.

Many people are even unable to produce that on their own and epd up disparaged, aimless, living their lives without any understanding of right, wrong, good, bad, moral, immoral.

For what religions are and what they do provide, i personally think some branches of buddhism are better, like the Sokka Gakkai International's approach provides.

I don't agree with the sentence that religious scholars are the best psychologists because they only can provide guidance inside what fits this prepackaged framework-for-living they adopted, and in many many cases (i.e. mentall illnesses, deep issues, moral hardship in grey areas, etc) they are unable to effectively help in any significant way.

Good news is that psychology isn't incompatible with religion and both can coexist peacefully, and one can get the best of both worlds wathout thinking one is best; they work in different ways and provide different things, and IMO they aren't directly comparable, as a psychologist cannot help you very well in terms of religion, and a religious scholar cannot help you very well in terms of psychology (except for the thinfs that fit witin the religious framework chosen).

So all in all, i agree that religion as a valid choice and should be part of discourse, as sometimes it can very well be the best course of action.

Just don't agree with throwing blanket statements of what's best or not in a world as plastic and complex as the one we live in.

There are 'religious but not spiritual' groups for those who appreciate the structure of religion in their life but who don't believe in God. Atheist Quakers are an established group, and some Jewish groups seem close to an atheistic religion.

For those of you complaining about SnowHill9902 recommending religion, please check out Optimize.me (free) for something secular. It's still, IMO, the best collection of practical self-help knowledge and insight available on the internet.

As someone who was religious when they are younger but no longer, why? I used to be a devout Christian until I went exploring the world and saw the unreal amount of massive suffering, imbedded greed etc; If god is real, he is a cruel god.

We have the technology and means to ensure every person on this earth does not go hungry and has a safe place to sleep at night. But humans do human stuff.

You probably pass plenty of homeless in your daily life and never look/think of them again. Yet somehow religion constantly preaches harmony and giving to others. Most religious people I know are inherently greedy and abide by Capitalistic morals and act as such.

I guess I could create a bubble for myself and not care about others at an inherently deep level like most humans on earth do.

What would a religious Scholar/Teachings do for me if I can plainly see that teachings are only followed when convenient or warped to fit my world narrative? What would you suggest?

After the Irish Potato Famine that George Boole lived through, he worked on a paper named "Origin of Evil".

His conclusion was: Absolute evil does not exist and pain is an instrument of good.

I can't find it online, my source is the documentary "The Genius of George Boole" [1].

Kierkegaard's The Sickness unto Death [2] could be a related reading too. I remember that I enjoyed it in a fun way.

Also a dumb theory of mine is: suffering is the proof that you are still alive.

[1] https://youtu.be/Hljir_TyTEw?t=1855

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sickness_unto_Death

Nothing quite like fear of eternal damnation to motivate oneself.

So true. Pork is forbidden for muslims for many centuries (an awesome kind of motivation) and yet people struggled to wear masks during the Covid19 pandemic while facing own potential death, maybe killing relatives or unknown consequences (at the time).

That's a strawman.

Not really, it was a big motivator for me in three decades I wasted believing indoctrinated garbage. Thankfully I broke out of that tar pit of magical thinking.

It's a straw man in the context of using faith to battle addiction, regardless of the role it played in your personal life. Virtually no one advocates trying to scare addicts into recovery with the threat of hell.

Really? The only thing that will motivate them is a baseless claim about life/suffering after death?

What else?

People are motivated by many things. They don't need fairy tales. Religion and superstition has ruled over people for thousands of years. Let's give evidenced-based approaches a few millennia before we go back to that garbage.

So far evidence-based approach seems to end up as YOLO-style approaches.

Overall culture seems to be more and more nihilistic and individualistic after dropping religion. Few people may be doing the right thing and say that we have to care about future generations. But wast majority, looking at their actions, doesn’t care.

It may be hard to accept that the universe exists for no reason at all. You can fall in to a nihilistic trap where nothing matters. Or you can fall into a fantasy trap and say it matters for reasons that are not true.

I would rather follow a more humanistic path, that we define our own existence, and that we should attempt to minimize our own suffering.

The problem is if enough people go full-nihilist, society crumbles.

Same for minimising one's suffering. A healthy society requires a lot of sacrifice from individuals, even with today's technology.

Where's the evidence that lies are better to prevent this nihilistic crumbling of society?

If people would believe religion stuff, it’s be pretty easy to motivate them to clean up the damn planet. Of course, given that the leaders would sign off on that.

Can you be a little more specific?