The Mysery of Religious Belief

[SeattleUte]

I think the answer to the mystery of why people believe in religous creeds is complicated and many faceted. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. I don't know if that's literally true. I do know 90%+ of the world lives an unexamined life (at least as Socrates meant that term), and presumably many of them are happy and live fulfilling lives. It's hard for people like myself and many of you, who habitually intellectualize almost everything, to fathom that people don't wrestle with the same questions we do, but most of them don't. They don't even start down that path, and have no compulsion to do so. Maybe it's a defensive, survival mechanism. Anyway, it's just the way they are, whether from birth or because of a combination of hard wiring and environmental factors.

I think most of the general authorities are that way. I remember Steve Benson discussing once how when he met Pres. Kimball he was struck at what a simple, uneducated man he was. I think that's been true of most of the GA's in the Church's history. But it's not just a matter of education or breeding level. I've noted this core personality trait even among people who are not religious and highly intelligent. I have known many non-religious people who were very intelligent and just didn't find it rewarding--in fact often they found it irritating or painful--to delve into any kind of metaphysics. Tolstoy discusses this contrast in comparing the personalities of Pierre and Prince Andrei in War and Peace.

But I think there is something else going on here. I've come to suspect that maybe the most exalted form of religious belief is a state where one realizes that regardless of what may have happened before the big bang, we live in a thoroughly material universe, and there is nothing to allow for events like visitations from immortal beings and promptings of the spirit, but nevertheless, religion is important enough that it must be maintained and nourished. Further, no secular humanist who ever felt a debt to religion has answered the paradox that absent mullahs, there probably would not have been religion. Personally, I am a lover of Western Civilization. I love the three thousand year arc of its history, the core values, the aesthetics, everything. My wife has noted that I'd probably have been happier having been born a European. So I must acknowledge that though I believe Classical civilization is the most vital part of our roots, and I loath religious fundamentalism, if you remove Judaism and Christianity from the mix, our civilization would look a lot different from what it is, and maybe be less attractive. It's speculation, to be sure, but I love our civilization as it is. (People like Christopher Hitchins who don't acknowledge this are as narrow minded as the mullahs, or they just want to sell books.) (I probably also would not have been born absent Christiantity.)

Let me give you a concrete example of what I'm saying. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was a thoroughly modern, 21st century man. He was a materialist (believed the unversed is made only of material stuff), and an atheist, and he'd figured out atomic theory, natural selection, molecules, of course the cosmos, the earth's subsurface, etc., essentially all basic science. When rediscovered he was tremendously important to the Enlightenment. But he is (unfairly) regarded by popular culture as a hedonist, because he said stuff like: going to war, stressing out about money, trying to become famous or doing something grand, is a silly waste of time, even if you might succeed. The cost-benefit doesn't justify it. He even said have lots of sex, but avoid falling in love or having children, because romantic love and children are too pain inducing and risky on many levels. I think this is in fact what many non-religious people believe today. But would Epicureans have sailed to the New World and settled it? I'm not sure they would even have felt the need to invent the printing press.

I think this is what Einstein meant when he noted in various quotations the inextricable relationship between science and religion.

So this is where I think people like Hugh B. Brown and B.H. Roberts, and many other "devout" but seemingly non-believing Mormons, may have arrived--they realize that we live in a thoroughly material universe, and there is nothing to allow for events like visitations from immortal beings and promptings of the spirit, but nevertheless, religion is important enough that it must be maintained and nourished. Somebody has got to do it, so they will. The motivation to do so obviously becomes compounded when one finds his or her whole career and social network enmeshed with religion, such that to apostatize would be economic and emotional suicide.

This is where I am too, as you see. But Mormon culture simply doesn't suit me. It's matter of taste, really. Probably the primary thing that drives me crazy about it is its blindness to the debt it owes to what came before Joseph Smith; nonsense like condemning the “Hellenization of Christianity.” Mormonism and Christopher Hitchins have a lot in common. This is why all apostasy is ultimately cultural, in my opinion.

[SeattleUte]

I'm going to regard lack of response to this post as proving my point.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm going to regard lack of response to this post as proving my point.

Of course you would.

I think there may be something more going on here that what you have suggested, but I have been out of town and unable to post on this stuff. There are many other possibilities. This is one, but only one.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm going to regard lack of response to this post as proving my point.

I think what you've written is interesting. There's a little William James in there, especially with your bit about the motivation to discover the new world.

This seems to be your anti-testimony. Your statement of why you don't belong in an organized religion.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm going to regard lack of response to this post as proving my point.

Right, because silence usually implies consent. :-)

Seriously, I have no problem with the conclusions you have reached. I think that this one set of conclusions that the "evidence" permits.

I think that I and others simply choose to live in a world where God speaks to man and where each individual has access to the divine on some level. It gives us purpose, comfort and direction. As I have said before I don't think we are compelled to do this but rather choose it for a myriad of reasons.

I think you are correct in identifying that a belief in God may have something to do with the impulse of the explorer and inventor, I would add just as importantly the impulse of the artist, the architect and the composer. Interestingly it seems that ever since humans have lived in communities that we have needed to express ourselves artistically and this has most often taken the form or worship of some kind whether of Elohim or Jesus Christ or of Baal or Anu. So regardless of the source of it, the impulse is there. As I say you have you choice of explanations for it.

I don't think I an agree with your characterization of what Brown or Roberts believed. I guess I would put it this way: for most of us the fruits of the tree are good which allows you to over look, or exercise faith with respect to, things that might bother you more if they were not. There are personal and cultural issues there too, as you say.

I think that for a person who is raised LDS but who doesn't stay in, you have no choice but to define yourself in large measure in contrast to your former belief system which is what I think your post does in part. That is not a critique. I'm not sure how you could do otherwise considering what you have come to believe.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Right, because silence usually implies consent. :-)

Seriously, I have no problem with the conclusions you have reached. I think that this one set of conclusions that the "evidence" permits.

I think that I and others simply choose to live in a world where God speaks to man and where each individual has access to the divine on some level. It gives us purpose, comfort and direction. As I have said before I don't think we are compelled to do this but rather choose it for a myriad of reasons.

I think you are correct in identifying that a belief in God may have something to do with the impulse of the explorer and inventor, I would add just as importantly the impulse of the artist, the architect and the composer. Interestingly it seems that ever since humans have lived in communities that we have needed to express ourselves artistically and this has most often taken the form or worship of some kind whether of Elohim or Jesus Christ or of Baal or Anu. So regardless of the source of it, the impulse is there. As I say you have you choice of explanations for it.

I don't think I an agree with your characterization of what Brown or Roberts believed. I guess I would put it this way: for most of us the fruits of the tree are good which allows you to over look, or exercise faith with respect to, things that might bother you more if they were not. There are personal and cultural issues there too, as you say.

I think that for a person who is raised LDS but who doesn't stay in, you have no choice but to define yourself in large measure in contrast to your former belief system which is what I think your post does in part. That is not a critique. I'm not sure how you could do otherwise considering what you have come to believe.

Good post. But I think you overstate the extent to which my apostasy defines me. I think Mormons who have been close to me are more guilty of this than myself, which doesn't make me too happy. Maybe we do the same thing to gay people vis-a-vis their sexual preference. Some over-define themselves in terms of sexual preference, but I bet th emajority of times its heterosexuals doing the defining.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I think what you've written is interesting. There's a little William James in there, especially with your bit about the motivation to discover the new world.

This seems to be your anti-testimony. Your statement of why you don't belong in an organized religion.

You're correct in a sense. I adapted this from an exchange of emails with an acquaintance puzzling over the tanacity of LDS faith.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Good post. But I think you overstate the extent to which my apostasy defines me. I think Mormons who have been close to me are more guilty of this than myself, which doesn't make me too happy. Maybe we do the same thing to gay people vis-a-vis their sexual preference. Some over-define themselves in terms of sexual preference, but I bet th emajority of times its heterosexuals doing the defining.

I really wasn't trying to overstate it. In fact, I revised the first post in an attempt to make it sound less that way. I'm just saying that in order to make the break from your upbringing and heritage, your new thought processes necessary have to address the old ones. Thats all.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm going to regard lack of response to this post as proving my point.

You can conclude from me that the post was far too long to hold my attention. I like to read what self perspective intellects think. However, it is usually so boring I can only take about 2 or 3 paragraphs at a time.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think the answer to the mystery of why people believe in religous creeds is complicated and many faceted. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. I don't know if that's literally true. I do know 90%+ of the world lives an unexamined life (at least as Socrates meant that term), and presumably many of them are happy and live fulfilling lives. It's hard for people like myself and many of you, who habitually intellectualize almost everything, to fathom that people don't wrestle with the same questions we do, but most of them don't. They don't even start down that path, and have no compulsion to do so. Maybe it's a defensive, survival mechanism. Anyway, it's just the way they are, whether from birth or because of a combination of hard wiring and environmental factors.

I think most of the general authorities are that way. I remember Steve Benson discussing once how when he met Pres. Kimball he was struck at what a simple, uneducated man he was. I think that's been true of most of the GA's in the Church's history. But it's not just a matter of education or breeding level. I've noted this core personality trait even among people who are not religious and highly intelligent. I have known many non-religious people who were very intelligent and just didn't find it rewarding--in fact often they found it irritating or painful--to delve into any kind of metaphysics. Tolstoy discusses this contrast in comparing the personalities of Pierre and Prince Andrei in War and Peace.

But I think there is something else going on here. I've come to suspect that maybe the most exalted form of religious belief is a state where one realizes that regardless of what may have happened before the big bang, we live in a thoroughly material universe, and there is nothing to allow for events like visitations from immortal beings and promptings of the spirit, but nevertheless, religion is important enough that it must be maintained and nourished. Further, no secular humanist who ever felt a debt to religion has answered the paradox that absent mullahs, there probably would not have been religion. Personally, I am a lover of Western Civilization. I love the three thousand year arc of its history, the core values, the aesthetics, everything. My wife has noted that I'd probably have been happier having been born a European. So I must acknowledge that though I believe Classical civilization is the most vital part of our roots, and I loath religious fundamentalism, if you remove Judaism and Christianity from the mix, our civilization would look a lot different from what it is, and maybe be less attractive. It's speculation, to be sure, but I love our civilization as it is. (People like Christopher Hitchins who don't acknowledge this are as narrow minded as the mullahs, or they just want to sell books.) (I probably also would not have been born absent Christiantity.)

Let me give you a concrete example of what I'm saying. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was a thoroughly modern, 21st century man. He was a materialist (believed the unversed is made only of material stuff), and an atheist, and he'd figured out atomic theory, natural selection, molecules, of course the cosmos, the earth's subsurface, etc., essentially all basic science. When rediscovered he was tremendously important to the Enlightenment. But he is (unfairly) regarded by popular culture as a hedonist, because he said stuff like: going to war, stressing out about money, trying to become famous or doing something grand, is a silly waste of time, even if you might succeed. The cost-benefit doesn't justify it. He even said have lots of sex, but avoid falling in love or having children, because romantic love and children are too pain inducing and risky on many levels. I think this is in fact what many non-religious people believe today. But would Epicureans have sailed to the New World and settled it? I'm not sure they would even have felt the need to invent the printing press.

I think this is what Einstein meant when he noted in various quotations the inextricable relationship between science and religion.

So this is where I think people like Hugh B. Brown and B.H. Roberts, and many other "devout" but seemingly non-believing Mormons, may have arrived--they realize that we live in a thoroughly material universe, and there is nothing to allow for events like visitations from immortal beings and promptings of the spirit, but nevertheless, religion is important enough that it must be maintained and nourished. Somebody has got to do it, so they will. The motivation to do so obviously becomes compounded when one finds his or her whole career and social network enmeshed with religion, such that to apostatize would be economic and emotional suicide.

This is where I am too, as you see. But Mormon culture simply doesn't suit me. It's matter of taste, really. Probably the primary thing that drives me crazy about it is its blindness to the debt it owes to what came before Joseph Smith; nonsense like condemning the “Hellenization of Christianity.” Mormonism and Christopher Hitchins have a lot in common. This is why all apostasy is ultimately cultural, in my opinion.

Excellent post. I think pretty much everything is cultural, and religious tradition is no different. "Belief" is a mind game, an exercise in self-convincing, and ultimately fairly irrelevant to the larger cultural forces that religion both draws upon and contributes to. It's sort of like the introduction of romance into marriage - although spouses have always loved each other, the idea of giddy love as the defining feature of this relationship is recent phenomenon (historically speaking). Religion is about relationships and bargains - with self, deity, society.

I applaud religion for its contributions to humanism - the culminating achievement of our species. Man is the measure of all things (Protagoras), and insomuch as organized religion offers a forum for humanism, it has indeed benefited the world. Fundamentalism, irrationality, and the modern obsession with belief and phenomenology are red herrings (to me), and ultimately detract from that the benefits religion have brought the world.