Ignoring the plaintive cries of those who have managed to convince themselves the world's only five thousand years old and a single boat managed to carry a pair from all the world's species, I'd say that you're pretty close to the mark there Ludwig.

I think it's important to differentiate between god and literal religion. I see ritualistic religions as a very narrow way to view the world, but seeing as god has no definition, it's different.

The old chestnut runs as thus: If we simply define god as 'everything' then by definition 'everything' exists.
It comes back to whether we define god as an intelligence. If god is omniscient, then it can't be intelligent because intelligence as we know it is reacting to stimuli and learning.
An omniscient entity can't learn. Knowing everything is similar to knowing nothing, there's no parameters for measurement.

I don't think we're anywhere near answering lifes biggest mysteries, though it's a joke to think the answers are so childlike as those in religion.

I say ritualistic religions are a narrow, small and unimaginative way to view the world because they imply that belief, membership and participation are prerequisites.
That's the biggest joke of all - the idea that if there's a god, it gives the slightest consideration to whether you're in a church or temple. The idea that it cares if babies have water poured on their heads strikes me as incredibly silly.
The child-like simplicity of the creation story and the Garden of Eden sounds so similar to the legends told by primitive people, when we live in a complex world.

I think literal belief is childlike - but that isn't to say that religious beliefs can't be more sophisticated.
When religious tales aren't seen literally they can be mined for pearls of historical wisdom and philosophy. This requires people to be more independent and willing to scrutinise and criticise.

It's the unimaginativeness of those who require a literal straightforward guide to live their lives that seems narrow, I think.

Some answers, you just can't find in books. Not even your favourite one.

Dear Ludwig,

Dare I suggest that there exist two elements (a) the neurologically penchant for survival in our reptilian brain and the need to rationalise death and (b) the desire for an after-life (not all religions. The neocortex, confrabricates a solution, between survive and an dilemma; resulting in Shaman, spirituality and religions. This is innate imagination, of a kind.

On the other hand, institutions can leverage igorance for the purpose of levaging power. Reinforcement (Skinner) often requires indwelling (Polanyi) in a performance of a rite. This act is deliberate and plays to the imagination of the inner desires peoples.

Perhaps, religionists could seek to be treated with SSRIs? These pharmaceutals might inhbit the growth of neural networks, supporting obsessive thinking.

KR,

O.

Polycarp, of course people would never be willing to die for something that they felt was not true. So the fact that millions have been willing to give their lives for their god throughout the history of religion indicates that they totally believe in their god….and in the afterlife, and that their god will treat them well in their next incarnation if they are good disciples in their earthly lives.

So how have they come to believe in something for which they have not only no proof but not a shred of real evidence?

Simple. When your whole tribe or village or country believed in a certain religious doctrine, you didn’t have much choice. You were not in a position to question things too much. You found out early what thoughts and points of discussion were out of bounds. And you didn’t get any education or contact with outsiders that might make you inwardly question your faith. In fact, your education was totally in line with your religion. It was an intimate mixture of the facts of life and the myths of your religion that were purported to be facts.

Even today, with vastly increased communications and contact with other cultures and religions, many millions of people are really not in a position to question the faith that they are born into.

So…millions come to totally and utterly believe in things that are fantasy, or greatly distorted! They THINK that they know these things are true. And they think that they know that anything that runs counter to these beliefs is not true. When they think they know that dying for their god would be a good thing (and they think they know that they would be securing a prosperous afterlife as a result), then it is easy to see how they would be willing to die for their god delusion.

A lack of self confidence is a significant factor - being part of something perceived as grand, powerful and which also allows the believer to think they are somehow superior to people who don't share their belief certainly indicates much imaginative self delusion.

Some of the most arrogant and insulting posts on OLO come from very religious people. I can only assume that their sense of self is very fragile or they wouldn't need to pass judgement on others all the time.

'A lack of self confidence is a significant factor - being part of something perceived as grand, powerful and which also allows the believer to think they are somehow superior to people who don't share their belief certainly indicates much imaginative self delusion.'

Sounds very much like secular humanism actually.

'A lack of self confidence is a significant factor - being part of something perceived as grand, powerful and which also allows the believer to think they are somehow superior to people who don't share their belief certainly indicates much imaginative self delusion.'

Sounds very much like evolution's THEORISTS really

why do they need to accept their idols theories
as certified fact?

cause they dont have imagination?
or the skills to test them?
or need to follow laws?

or love talking about their idols?

not many imaginative posts so far ludwig
yet some great insights