There’s a fair body of both social and biological science now to suggest that, however it comes about, most humans are cognitively wired to accept irrational beliefs.
But it often requires a stark level of realism to break through the mental defensive shell erected around that belief, with the end result cognitive dissonance — the emotional quaker a person goes through when they can no longer rationalize having faith in something and suddenly lose its emotional support.
A former mormon bishop once said that realizing his faith was based on lies was like having the world pulled out from under him, like he had no understanding of humanity or his role in it, for months.
Like most intelligent men who are nonetheless capable of becoming captive to faith, he’s happier since living such a strident orthodoxy, although has somewhat lapsed in that he immediately turned to capitalism as a replacement.
People: all systems of faith, economics and politics are created by us. We’re flawed, so none of them are perfect.
The question is how imperfect, or blind to those imperfections, a faithful person is willing to be. This Dallas Morning News article outlines the crisis of faith people around the world are experiencing as it becomes more evident daily that high-ranking Catholics — and quite possibly Pope Benedict himself — helped cover up, or wilfully ignored, years of system child abuse.
This guy, creepy? No way!
The article is crap, replete with specious examples of crises of faith that, regardless of the cause, have long-existed in the church. But the end result is interesting: people don’t lose their faith in a higher power, just their faith in a particular religion.
If you’re a pragmatic pluralist — someone who accepts we’ll likely never understand our origins or which side of the atheism/theism argument is correct — it’s neat to see people realizing they can use the ceremony, community and decency inherent to many moderated religions, and discard the divisive, insulating effects of orthodoxy.
This is not new. Many religions have can thank their lucky starts they embraced religion and reform early on, and consequently are represented by entire congregations of agnostic supporters. For example, there are more than 40 synagogues across North America that are home to “secular humanist judaism,” the practice of elements of the faith, but with an acceptance that religion is created by man in an attempt to understand his origins.
On the judeo-christian front, there’s unitarianism, which is rooted in the Jeffersonian tradition of taking the logical communal lessons from the Bible and applying them humanely …without arrogantly assuming a super being that looks like us (or we like him, six of one, half a dozen of the other) is in charge of everything and created it all.
A few years ago, the author and lecturer Dr. David Wulff told me it all comes down to the same thing: a need for comfort and security.
“In religion, you have a magnet that draws people together: there’s mystery, there’s the promise of a form of immortality, there is hope for solutions to complex problems,” said Wulff.
“A lot of it is very pragmatic. It’s been argued that religion is what we do when there are no real answers left. And you see that reflected all the time: when people are trapped in a mine and there’s nothing the people trying to save them can do, they pray. The fact that it’s so often ineffective doesn’t seem to matter, given the comfort that it brings them.
“I’m thinking back to a study done in the 1970s by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in which they trained interviewers to go into nine congregations and interview members to find out why the church was important to them and what about it was most important.
“And what the people kept saying over and over again was that it was the sense of caretaking, first towards the congregation by the minister, and then between the congregation itself. Whenever one of the interviewers would suggest there was something wrong with the answers, because they didn’t discuss the church’s ‘justification by faith’ doctrine, or God or Jesus, they would remark that there was no better conversation stopper than the actual theological questions.
“So despite the church’s belief that all of these important doctrines, rules, codes and traditions were important, inevitably the congregation wasn’t concerned with that. They were much more concerned with one another.”
Slightly More Upright 
I was more than ready to rip you, but you’re right, except for one point.
The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus created in Matt 16:18-21. In the latter chapters of John, Jesus tells his disciples that he will send his Holy Spirit to protect and guide his Church and its principles. So the Catholic Church is the church of Jesus Christ. And despite the fact that he trusted sinners like Peter (who denied him three times after promising to go to his death with him) to carry it forward, the Holy Spirit does guide and protect the Catholic Church.
We clearly now know that all Christians have some of the truth. But Catholics have the totality.
Take care.
Rip me all you want, David. It’ll be just as illogical as saying “Jesus” created anything, given that there’s no real evidence he even existed.
For one, whether “Matthew” and “Jesus” are quoted as knowing each other in the Bible is irrelevant, since the earliest physical copy of his gospel dates to around 70 years after his alleged crucifixtion. So there is NO contemporary, timely evidence to prove he existed. A story written 70 years later is not proof. Of anything. It’s just a story. Great story. Lots of good messages. Not proof of anything. Have all the faith you want, but don’t try to fool yourself into thinking it’s based in any proveable fact, because it isn’t.
In fact, by that standard of proof, it’s been about 60 years since L. Ron Hubbard, a pulp science fiction writer with a penchant for sociopathy, wrote the ridiculous tale behind scientology. Yet, for some reason, you don’t take his word as “gospel.”
Do you honestly believe people would go to a horrible death for a lie? I don’t know many who died for what Hubbard stood for. I can name 11 contemporaries who died for their belief in him, and many others down through the ages. All these people had to do was renounce their belief, and they’d be allowed to live. Peter saw Jesus after he was buried in the tomb, walking and talking to him. So did Andrew, Thomas, James, Bartholemew, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, dying for the man they walked with and believed in.
I’ll leave you with this: If you’re an atheist, and you’re right, when we die, neither of us will know it, we’ll just be dead. If I’m right, when we die, both will know it, for different reasons. You’ll know it because you renounced Him, I’ll know it because I serve Him.
Oookay there, don’t answer any of the specific points.
You see, that’s cognitive dissonance. You can’t answer any of the points I’ve made with a rational argument, so you rely on “no one would die for something that isn’t real”, which will be of great relief to the families of various suicidal orthodoxies.
It’s like you’re drugged by belief and don’t even know it. I make a few specific points and you help prove them by immediately reverting to a nonsensical strawman (look it up) based on your fear of death.
My suggestion would be for you to scroll to the bottom of the page and actually read every word. Then, I’d surf somewhere you’re going to feel more comfortable, because most of the issues we discuss on here are not within your ability to understand when you’re all faithed up.
“People: all systems of faith, economics and politics are created by us. We’re flawed, so none of them are perfect.”
Wrong. Judaism was not created by man, neither was Christianity.
“…people don’t lose their faith in a higher power, just their faith in a particular religion.”
This is true only because of the vast number of religions that have spawned since the Protestant reformation. Before that, there was one religion. The one started by Jesus. Who lived historically. And actually, I do understand which side of the atheism/theism divide is correct. I can prove there’s a God, and you can’t prove that there isn’t.
I don’t follow Christ because of what any pastor or person in church can do to make me feel good. I follow Christ, as many Catholics do, because of what he did for us. You’re snide comment about not answering your questions proves that you’re not intelligent enough to grok the answers I gave you. Since there’s no intelligence in this blog, c ya!
“And actually, I do understand which side of the atheism/theism divide is correct. I can prove there’s a God, and you can’t prove that there isn’t.”
Ooooookay, bye bye now!