Why do people think that religion is "comforting"

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I've heard this phrase discussed on a spectrum, from the unintentionally patronising "People are religious because they have nowhere else to turn" to the downright insulting "religion is a crutch for emotionally immature people."

Let me ask this, why do people think this?

I'll admit that there are comforting aspects too religion, such as being able to pray to someone who always listens, and know there is someone who always has your best interests at heart etc, but religion isn't some love in with God. It runs a lot deeper than that.

To know all the time, every day of your life, that there is a moral code that you must do you utmost to adhere to, a code that is both positive and negative, and demands of you so so very much of your life, that's a challenging thing. That's not comforting. That's deeply and profoundly challenging.

I personally would see the non religious viewpoint as much more comforting. The idea that you can trust in yourself to do your best to find the "right" path for you etc, and you don't have to worry about always trying your hardest etc unless you yourself want to. To me, that seems like a much simpler existence.

So let me ask, do you seriously regard religion as "comforting"? Because from a Christian POV, I don't see figures in our history who are celebrated who had "comfortable" experiences, or who were just looking for a way to make some peace with oblivion. Because if you do, have you ever thought about religion seriously as anything more than a means to confront the end of your life. Because while what comes after death is important in religious circles, it's not all that's important by a long long stretch.

[Abreo]

To know all the time, every day of your life, that there is a moral code that you must do you utmost to adhere to, a code that is both positive and negative, and demands of you so so very much of your life, that's a challenging thing. That's not comforting. That's deeply and profoundly challenging.

 

I'm pretty sure everyone has that. I may not go to hell for going against my moral code but I will hate myself and/or feel bad about what I did. 

I personally would see the non religious viewpoint as much more comforting. The idea that you can trust in yourself to do your best to find the "right" path for you etc, and you don't have to worry about always trying your hardest etc unless you yourself want to. To me, that seems like a much simpler existence.

 

You don't have to try hard to do right just because you're religious. Apathy is prevalent in all people. 

Also if you're religious the right path is spelled out for you. In some religions, especially the eastern ones, in may be difficult to set yourself upon the right path but you don't have to put any thought into creating one. You don't even have to wonder if there is one—you know there is!

You can easily word anything to make it sound harder or easier because it's all a matter of perspective. For a lot of people religion is comforting. You can learn this just by speaking to them about either their religious beliefs or atheism. Other people consider atheism to be more comforting. Like I said it's all perspective. It's about whatever bothers you the most not what's intrinsically anything.

[Samantha Sirsky]

One of the "comforting" aspects of many religions is an afterlife. I am a Catholic, so speaking from this religion, we believe in Heaven. I think that one of the hardest things for us as humans to comprehend is the thought of not being, not breathing, not walking or talking, simply not existing. It is hard to imagine not existing; it is hard to imagine oblivion. And that is exactly why it is comforting to believe there is something after death: we will still be. To think that there is somewhere else that we can exist eternally, even after we die, is comforting and the easiest solution to the mind-blowing possibility of Not Being.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

To think that there is somewhere else that we can exist eternally, even after we die, is comforting and the easiest solution to the mind-blowing possibility of Not Being.

 

Yes, but then you've got the nature of that afterlife. How it is contingent on your response to God, and to a differing extent, how you live your life. I don't know about you, but I find that issue rather concerning and challenging. Certianly, when you couple that with the responsability that the nature of eternal life brings upon people (IE the need to tell them about what Jesus did so as to help save them from hell) I find it very very challenging indeed. At least oblivion can be ignored. Heaven and hell cannot be, and anyone who merely draws comfort from their existance hasn't really grasped exactly what they mean.

[Samantha Sirsky]

I find the prospect of not existing and not knowing what is happening around me far more daunting than what Heaven or Hell are like. I just cannot picture not knowing how my friends and family are doing, not being able to think, not being able to move. I cannot fathom the thought of any of that. Catholics believe that Heaven will be good: no pain, no suffering, no more death or sickness. And we believe that we should have faith in God and just trust that it will be good and that we will have eternal life and happiness in Heaven with Him when we die. I really think the whole concept of Hell is against the God we are taught to believe in, so I'm not so sure about that.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I really think the whole concept of Hell is against the God we are taught to believe in, so I'm not so sure about that.

Then how do you account for the fact that Jesus makes several mentions of it in the Gospels.

Catholics believe that Heaven will be good: no pain, no suffering, no more death or sickness. And we believe that we should have faith in God and just trust that it will be good and that we will have eternal life and happiness in Heaven with Him when we die.

 

The Bible also says that the weight of how good your life has been shall be weighed up at the end of your life, in order to determine your estate in heaven. To me, that seems very compelling and challenging. I don't really see how you can just rest on the idea of that.

I just cannot picture not knowing how my friends and family are doing, not being able to think, not being able to move. I cannot fathom the thought of any of that.

 

I'll make it very easy for you. Imagine a night where you go to sleep and don't dream. Its exactly like that night.

The point I'm trying to make is with oblivion, you can ignore it. You can just live your life leaving it be. As a religious person though, the afterlife requires a response. You can't simply be comforted by it. It needs responding to.

[Samantha Sirsky]

Then how do you account for the fact that Jesus makes several mentions of it in the Gospels.

I know Jesus mentions Hell, but I think it was more metaphorically speaking some of the time. I just feel like the God we are taught wouldn't punish people eternally just because they made poor decisions. My religion teacher agrees.

The Bible also says that the weight of how good your life has been shall be weighed up at the end of your life, in order to determine your estate in heaven. To me, that seems very compelling and challenging. I don't really see how you can just rest on the idea of that.

That was metaphorically written as well, I think. It was just saying that we should do good because we will be rewarded with happiness in Heaven. That doesn't mean we'll have a "bigger house" or anything like that in Heaven. (That's what my teachers used to say when I was in elementary school.)

I'll make it very easy for you. Imagine a night where you go to sleep and don't dream. Its exactly like that night.

The point I'm trying to make is with oblivion, you can ignore it. You can just live your life leaving it be. As a religious person though, the afterlife requires a response. You can't simply be comforted by it. It needs responding to.

First, you always dream as long as you reach the REM stage of sleep, which you do as long as you sleep for more than four/five hours. So eternally speaking, you would have to dream. You may not remember dreaming, but you still do. And I used to be incredibly intrigued by this a few years back, so I'm sorry but I have to take that comparison literally, and I cannot use that to imagine what it would be like. Second, I don't think the afterlife needs so much of a response as oblivion does. If you have faith that God will make things okay in the end, then there is no need to worry. But oblivion? Yeah, I'm freaked about that.

Who knows what would happen?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I know Jesus mentions Hell, but I think it was more metaphorically speaking some of the time. I just feel like the God we are taught wouldn't punish people eternally just because they made poor decisions. My religion teacher agrees.

Poor descisions, no. God has the capacity to forgive everyone for all sin. It's the ultimate decisision that's at issue. Whether or not you ask to be forgiven for things you've done wrong. And while Jesus does talk about hell in parables, it is fairly clear that these are metaphors for something. What, for instance, was Jesus talking about with the parables of the goats and the sheep and the parable of the ten virgins if he wasn't talking about hell. Both these and other passages make it very clear that some people will be shut out from heaven, and it's only fair, given that those people have sinned, that they be punished. Fortunately, we the sinners don't have to be the ones that recieve the punishment. That's what Jesus is there for, but as John 3:16 points out, you need to believe to recieve eternal life. Also, brief point, we know hell isn't catch all. We know there are levels and worse parts and 'better' parts. Jesus talks about that indirectly.

Here's a question, if everyone is going to heaven anyway, just what did Jesus die for?

That was metaphorically written as well, I think. It was just saying that we should do good because we will be rewarded with happiness in Heaven.

 

Erm... that doesn't fit with the context. This is from Paul's writings on theology, not parables. I get the feeling that you're choosing to say things are metaphors just when you do not like them.

First, you always dream as long as you reach the REM stage of sleep, which you do as long as you sleep for more than four/five hours.

 

You know full well what I meant. You don't always remember the dreams. So imagine a night where you don't remember the dream, and try to remember the time while you were asleep. You can't.

Second, I don't think the afterlife needs so much of a response as oblivion does. If you have faith that God will make things okay in the end, then there is no need to worry.

 

But the thing is, what your faith is based on teaches you that the afterlife is something that commands a response. You have to save people to keep them from experiencing the worst of it.

[Abreo]

Well it's comforting to know that when it happens you won't be around to care!

[C. Whalen]

I feel that religion is comforting in the way that any philosophy in which a person places their belief and confidence in is comforting.  If I am a firm believer in the golden rule, and live my life by that rule despite whatever hardships may come from it, then I may be comforted by the idea that I am holding true to my beliefs and valued despite adversity.

Similarly, if I believe that I have a deep and personal relationship with a god who listens and cares about what I have to say, who created me and loves me, then I may get comfort from knowing that I have that god to rely on.

I have to respectfully disagree that a non-religious morality is easier, or that an individual can arbitrarily determine what is right or wrong, or that such a life would be "a much simpler existence".  Living without a religious doctrine of what is right, wrong, or moral forces someone to think about what those things truly mean.  In certain religious contexts, 'good' means to do with god or to be godlike and 'bad' means without god or to do things which are not like god.  In which case it could be considered 'good' to, for example, drown the entire earth except for two of each animal because they displeased you, because that is something god (or at least the Christian god) has done.

If one does not have a god or holy book or set philosophy telling you what to do or what is right or wrong, it becomes harder to define what is good or bad, and it is therefore a more difficult thing to adhere to.  I try to live my life by the following rules: You may do what you like so long as you do not hurt other people.  This is, in my mind, a sort of neutral state.  Anything I do in the world to help other people, ease suffering, and increase happiness is good.  And anything I do which harms other people is bad.

So I may not have a religion which dictates that I should help the poor or feed the hungry, but I still believe it is a good thing to do, and it is something which I very much care about.  And I do not adhere to any doctrine which tells me that I should not steal or kill, but I don't do those things because (aside from legal repercussions), those things harm other people and are therefore wrong.  It becomes difficult where lines are not so clear.  Adherents of various religions may have certain doctrines which forbid extramarital, homosexual, or otherwise nonconventional relationships.  As I do not believe these relationships harm anyone as long as they are between consenting adults, I have no problems with them whatsoever, and indeed find that the limiting of the rights of these people is harmful and therefore immoral in my eyes.

With issues like abortion, it is incredibly common for people to fall back on religion or the idea that human life is sacred and precious.  But in many cases, not just rape or incest, but perhaps in families where there are already several children and the parent or parents do not have the means to raise another, or the pregnancy was an accidental one caused by the misuse or lack of availability of birth control and neither of the parents is capable of taking care of a child, or perhaps even carrying the child to term because of financial or health restrictions?  It may be easier to say simply that your god forbids the killing of unborn children, but to take into account the suffering of an unborn child without taking into account the overall affect it will have on the parents, siblings, or others?  Without even thinking perhaps of what situation or lifestyle an unwanted child or a child that was unprepared for might be born into?  Those questions are more difficult indeed to tell which situation brings more happiness and which situation harms fewer people.

That was really long, sorry.  I was careful to try to use phrasing that isn't antagonistic, so I'm sorry if anything comes across that way because I'm not trying to be and I really am very interested in this discussion.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I have to respectfully disagree that a non-religious morality is easier, or that an individual can arbitrarily determine what is right or wrong, or that such a life would be "a much simpler existence".  Living without a religious doctrine of what is right, wrong, or moral forces someone to think about what those things truly mean.

 

I don't think it really does. Ultimately, if you don't believe in a God, you also most likly don't believe in an set of right and wrong moral absolutes. Which means your morality, such as it is, can be much more pragmatic, to fit the circumstances. In that sense, it is much easier, because you can fit yourself to the situation. While it forces you to think, it also enables an amount of freedom, and crucially, it only exposes you to the consequences of the immediacy.

If one does not have a god or holy book or set philosophy telling you what to do or what is right or wrong, it becomes harder to define what is good or bad, and it is therefore a more difficult thing to adhere to.

 

I would argue that it becomes easier because you can choose what to make it. You can make a morality to suit yourself, rather than having to adhere to one existing externally.

It may be easier to say simply that your god forbids the killing of unborn children, but to take into account the suffering of an unborn child without taking into account the overall affect it will have on the parents, siblings, or others?  Without even thinking perhaps of what situation or lifestyle an unwanted child or a child that was unprepared for might be born into?  Those questions are more difficult indeed to tell which situation brings more happiness and which situation harms fewer people.

 

I think you are oversimplifying the issue for Christians there. Yes, it is simple to say that God describes all life as sacred, but the complex part, the challenging part, is that you then have to deal with the consequences of that action. You have to respond to the problem of those people in that situation by making it easier for them to deal with. Your belief in the sacred nature of life may make the moral decision simpler, but it makes the moral response, the action you must take in response to the position of your belief much harder. It is easy for the pro-choice person to be in support of abortions. It is hard for the pro life person, because as a result of being opposed to abortions, they must also move to make abortions more unnecessary by supporting people in those circumstances.

[C. Whalen]

I think you are oversimplifying the issue for Christians there.

The example was intended to show the difficulty of defining what is or is not right, not what response is called for.  I would dare to say that you are oversimplifying the issue for nonbelievers, particularly when you claim that if you do not believe in a higher power then you most likely also do not believe in a set of moral absolutes.

This is not only incorrect, it's a tiny bit offensive, because it sounds as if you don't think that people can be moral without believe in a god, whether it is yours or someone else's.

The fact is that if you do not adhere to a predetermined set of values or morals, it is true that you must determine what is right for you-- but that is a great challenge.  There are some things which I view as absolute, but on other issues there are many arguments for or against what is right or wrong, and the only way to truly understand these things and develop an opinion.

I think you may be less referring to the issue of morality and more to the religious obligation that is tied to morality.  Because morality is religious and is therefore tied to some later judgment or determination of the afterlife, it therefore compels you to take what is considered to be the right action in the eyes of the religion.  In that sense, I would agree that nontheists don't have that same drive, but that is not to say that they do not pursue behaviors to correct problems in the world.  One only needs to look at the number of charities or litter clean-ups or blood drives created or supported by atheists to see that.

Indeed I see very little difference in the behavior of a theistic person with a belief in the afterlife and a nontheistic person who disbelieves in one.  A theistic person may do the right thing according to his or her moral code with the expectation that his or her actions will be judged and rewarded.  A nontheistic person, who expects to find nothing after death, does the right thing in order to improve their lives and the lives of others because they believe that this is the only life they will be getting.  It is therefore important to do it right, and perhaps some small part of them may live on in the memories of others.

Which means your morality, such as it is, can be much more pragmatic, to fit the circumstances. In that sense, it is much easier, because you can fit yourself to the situation.

Finally I'd like to address this, and I'll apologize in advance for using small or radical offshoots of Christianity with mainstream Christianity, but it illustrates my point pretty well:

Just because your morality is a religion does not mean that it is subject to change and interpretation.  Modern day Christians tend not to cover the heads of their women and refrain from touching them when they menstruate, or shy away from eating bacon or wearing cloth that is woven with more than two fabrics.  In fact they largely discount many things from the Old Testament, particularly those bits in Leviticus with the selling your daughter into slavery and the forbidding of the consumption of shellfish.  A lot of Christians-- not all, I should clarify, because many churches today welcome homosexuals without any problems-- still get in a bit of a tizzy about the two men sleeping together bit.

If homosexuality is forbidden because it is the word of god, then churches should likely also not be allowing their patrons to do the things listed above... but that simply isn't the case.

What I mean to say is that no moral code can be absolute all of the time; it's subject to interpretation based upon the situation.  After all, "the truth resists simplicity".

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I would dare to say that you are oversimplifying the issue for nonbelievers, particularly when you claim that if you do not believe in a higher power then you most likely also do not believe in a set of moral absolutes.

If you don't believe in a higher power, you don't really have any sound source for an objective moral absolute. You may have subjective morality, but by it's very nature it's not absolute, and relatively valueless, since what you consider moral, others may not, and therefore choosing to act by yours may end up causing problems.

This is not only incorrect, it's a tiny bit offensive, because it sounds as if you don't think that people can be moral without believe in a god, whether it is yours or someone else's.

 

I think people can have morality, but I don't see it as something that can't be broken down to be anything other than a subjective opinion.

The fact is that if you do not adhere to a predetermined set of values or morals, it is true that you must determine what is right for you-- but that is a great challenge. 

Is it though? Can you not simply choose your own preferences? You can make it a challenge of course, you can try and aspire to something, but my point is that without a predetermined set of principles, you do not have to.

There are some things which I view as absolute, but on other issues there are many arguments for or against what is right or wrong, and the only way to truly understand these things and develop an opinion.

The problem I have here is that you say some things are absolute. Upon what basis are you making that claim?

Indeed I see very little difference in the behavior of a theistic person with a belief in the afterlife and a nontheistic person who disbelieves in one.

I think there is a difference. While its true that the many theists are fairly simmilar to athiests (something very sad in my view) we see certian acts of exceptional charity amoung the religious that are less common amoung the non religious. I have yet to see many non religious charitbale individuals that could be compared to people like Mother Terresa for instance.

Modern day Christians tend not to cover the heads of their women and refrain from touching them when they menstruate, or shy away from eating bacon or wearing cloth that is woven with more than two fabrics.

 

You do know that it's not just "modern day" Christians that don't do those things. Those practices died out more than 1800 years ago. Why? Because of Jesus. Because God had made it clear that the laws of the OT, the Old Covenant as they called it, were not determinant, and that Jesus was moving to establish an everlasting covenant.

If homosexuality is forbidden because it is the word of god, then churches should likely also not be allowing their patrons to do the things listed above... but that simply isn't the case.

No, that's not the case. It's a common and popular argument, but it ignores certain key factors.

1. Jesus himself was the one who removed the OT purity laws. Not Christians who didn't see them as convient

2. Jesus himself was opposed to homosexuality. Although it is not explicity stated, Jesus makes general reference to "Sexual immorality" which is defined in the OT as including homosexuality.

3. Paul also references homosexuality directly.

What I mean to say is that no moral code can be absolute all of the time; it's subject to interpretation based upon the situation.  After all, "the truth resists simplicity".

 

Disagree. People can have different opinions about what is the truth, but the truth itself remains.