Hello there Jack Cummins,

What an interesting question. I want to stand in the idea that believing in God or whatever religion is not innate at all. Probably I going to sound so empirical right now but look the next point.
Complex and abstract terms like “God” “Heaven” “souls” are learned to us in our way of life when we are getting to the adulthood. I been raised in a house of atheists people. So in my case I never even been or heard about what is God or a church making me feel so impasible about religion. I cannot remember at all feeling in an innate state trying to find a “way” to understand my meaningless life.

Nevertheless, I understand your point and I guess we can direct it in other path. Sometimes we have that period of life full of complexity where we ask ourselves questions like “why am I here?” “Why am I living this moment?” “What the future holds?” Etc... some authors name this moment as “personal period of thinking” while some people will find the way in a religious path, others in the philosophy branches (determinism, nihilism, empirical, etc...) So somehow I guess it is innate that feeling of questioning everything in our reality but not the answers.
What I tried to explain here is that you can’t know exactly what being religious is if before someone never explained to you that way of beliefs.

Nice to meet you. I wish we can have more debate in the future.

I was not aware that William James was interested in religion and psychology. I have his book about the psychology of education and only knew him as an authority on education and for advancing pragmaticism.

Allan Bloom argues the problem with nihilism in his book "Closing of the American Mind-How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy And Impoverished The Souls Of Today's Students". I find it depressing and therefore hard to read. To me, believing in nothing, not even the differences between males and females, and the importance of family is extremely depressing. Vive la France, at least leave us the pleasure of being man and woman and procreation.

Anyway reading your post, I immediately thought of Bloom's explanation of nihilism and my answer to your question is we must have something to believe in, something to live and die for because if there is nothing we want to live and die for, life is pretty miserable.

I know the US public schools attacked our national heroes and then dropped them and I see this as very destructive of our democracy. Democracy is based on a belief in humanity and education. It is about achieving human excellence and having liberty based on the highest morality. We need our role models and concepts of human dignity and honor and those have been under attack through education. Now we do not understand why we should not storm our Capitol building and take by force anything we think we should have control over. Our Capitol building is no longer sacred and may never again be an open experience for us to have because present conditions demand turning it into a fortress. I don't think a civilization can get any lower than this. The US may appear to survive, but this is not the democracy we inherited. It is more like the Germany we defeated in two world wars and education has brought us to this.

The bottom line, civilizations must have shared values or they self-destruct.

However, I am aware that ideas about religion, including the philosophy questions about the existence of God are so bound up with our lives as human beings. I wonder how this all connects together and even if the need for religious experience is innate. I do think that my topic might be seen as a bit complicated for the forum and I apologise if this is the case, but it is the whole area which I grapple with and seek to explore in my own life. So, I am interested in exploring this with anyone else who is also interested in this too. — Jack Cummins

We are fortunate that there are some in the world who have a similar need though at different intensities. Yet there are some with a great need for truth that is stronger than the need for pleasure and consolation

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Something at the depth of our being feeds on truth. Modern society and its dominant secular intolerance makes us suppress it in favor of becoming fixated indoctrinated societal goals. But there is this minority like Simone who keep it alive in the world when exposed to it. This is the goal of philosophy and the essence of religion; to inspire a person to experience truth over pleasure. Then God, as the energy of the Spirit, can be received by Man. I'm glad you seem to feel the need for truth rather than being consumed by the need for pleasure and consolation. IMO It is a worthwhile minority group.

Complex and abstract terms like “God” “Heaven” “souls” are learned to us in our way of life when we are getting to the adulthood. — javi2541997

I have a very old book explaining logic and it clear states we can never know enough to be absolutely sure of what we think we know. When we get older we totally get the meaning of "the more you know the more you don't know". Maturity is being okay with that.

We have been awashed with the lying that technology is like a God and empiricism gives us that God's truth. Thanks to education for technology we are smart but we are no longer wise.

I hope my country realizes that education for technology has destroyed wisdom and that we return to education for wisdom. That is liberal education.

I hope my country realizes that education for technology has destroyed wisdom and that we return to education for wisdom. That is liberal education. — Athena

This point is so much important. I totally agree with you that educational system is flawed since the day when states decided teaching us the "principles" to just work and pay our taxes. Probably yes we are more practical but we lost the path of wisdom and questioning everything.
When I say questioning I mean the key of not feeling "full" of what ever our teachers in the school/university teach.

However, I am aware that ideas about religion, including the philosophy questions about the existence of God are so bound up with our lives as human beings. I wonder how this all connects together and even if the need for religious experience is innate. — Jack Cummins

Religion being the intellectualization of spirituality (the definition I go with), is a collective mechanism in place to point individuals in the correct direction in order to initiate their own journey. It was never meant to be taken literally as a blueprint.

For those who do go off on their own, it is deeply rewarding, but so many times people seem to get caught up in the orthodoxy of written words, practices, and other attachments that only serve to confuse, distract, and depress.

If the answers were intellectual, believe me, everybody would have known about it long, long ago. The initial buzz created by the very idea of an higher moral order which gives purpose and meaning to life must be sustained by personal exploration which nourishes future spiritual growth. Otherwise, the buzz will depart (like all things) and you will be left like most who seem to think that religion is just a bunch of hooey.

I think it's different reasons for different people. I was raised in a similar tradition and to this day I deeply dislike the tribalism that goes with these religions. I cannot accept a single person as an arbiter or head of my relationship with "that which shall not be named but is all permeating".

I thought about Protestantism, and it's better in that regard, but ultimately still tribal and with hard coded views I can't ever fully accept.

Buddhism though not a religion, is a faith and has a philosophical component, much like Hinduism, which I find more functional.

A religion is almost like a mainstream theory of some system. You may want to define your own but you may not want to be a cultist! Buddhism is certainly the one I have studied the most. So from my point of view, it's ultimately about finding something that can improve my life and outlook, offer enlightenment as I believe Zen Buddhism has - a deeply fulfilling teaching that in my opinion will change you when you study it. You will on some level transcend.

Generally speaking, many people are Religious on loyalty and indoctrination grounds, and wanting to fit in to community. Some reject the kinds of metaphysical and esoteric doctrines of theism because they feel they do not wish to deal in uncertainties as if the universe was lacking in that regard at even just the physical level. I have observed many these days who feel insecure about theism, seeing it as some how ridiculing themselves, but that's at a very shallow perspective in my view. Some may be on a quest of empiricism and so theism is off limits like a pledge of celibacy. Some are desperate and crying out for help. These ones may turn to the dark side if they are unanswered, seeing it as some reason to reject virtue in that there is no arbiter as they see it of virtue. This is probably less likely in the nations with more eastern philosophies, as you are more expected to be your own arbiter of virtue on some level, more disciplined from a functionally practicing perspective too arguably; as meditation, sutras, and mantras, the opening to Sattori etc. are a little richer in action or effort or acceptance or devotion or whatever you want to call it. I would argue that having a philosophical side to a faith cultivates better ethics and virtue overall, but it's my subjective take.

Are people not less hate filled here than in other forums which are about vanilla communication?
I think that having a philosophical aspect to any theist pursuit is healthy for a person and at the community and individual level.

In all seriousness, g/G is a/the drug of choice which most human beings are weaned on – infantalising 'providential' fictions (i.e. fairytales, conspiracy theories, WOO-of-the-gaps) that are far more self-flattering than facing the cold hard indifferent facts of life without them. Creatures of desire that we are, our fears (i.e. blocked or destructive desires) hobble along on consecrated crutches of 'hope' rather than freely stepping – falling – into this ring of fire with disciplined, or stubborn, courage. I don't think we "need religious beliefs and ideas" any more than we need alcohol or opium.

Only when death (i.e. human Mortality) becomes (medically/technologically) optional will (the need for) religion die. Likewise, when ignorance (of ignorance, especially) is no longer an inescapable, or inexhaustable, aspect of human Existence will philosophy be dead and buried. — 180 Proof

Uncertainty (radical contingency) = freedom (agency) aka "dread". At best, philosophy is the critical check on, and active resistance to, the servile, totalitarian, temptations of "religious beliefs and ideas".

The working definition of religion which I will offer is one offered by William James in, 'The Varieties of Religious Experience' :
'Were one asked to characterise the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.' — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure James' definition matches mine exactly, but I'll stick with it because, well, we're supposed to use the assumptions provided in the original post.

Why do people need religious beliefs and ideas? — Jack Cummins

Reason #1 - Let's not call it a need. I think it's a capacity and a tendency. People see God for the same reason they see the rest of reality. Our minds are built, evolved that way. We look for patterns.

Reason #2 - Maybe there really is a God independent of humans.

Reason #3 - Maybe there is an unseen order.

Reason #4 - People tend to personify things. This is one of those capacities and tendencies discussed in Reason #1. God is the personification of the world.

Reason #5 - The world is a wonderful place. Humans feel grateful. We need to have someone to be grateful to.

Reason #6 - We're afraid of dying and want to believe we'll live forever. I don't like this one. It's the one used by militant atheists to sneer at religion and religious believers.

Reason #7 - People have direct experience of God, or at least something. Something that comes before thought. Before concepts. Something unspeakable, such as the Tao.

Reason #8 - Cause the Bible, and our parents, tell us so.

Reason #9 - Some or all of these.

I am interested to know why you think that we don't need religious beliefs, any more than alcohol and opium. I think that we are talking about whole mythological structures and systems of values. I do believe that we can rethink these for ourselves and find our own, but probably most people don't find the need to do so. To find our own mythic structure of meaning seems worthwhile to me, but this might mean that we are in the minority of the extraordinary.

I see that you think that James's definition of religion is not sufficient. I am open to other ones, if you feel that there are more expansive ones. I think that the reasons you spell out are useful for considering the whole level of importance for religion for many people.

Perhaps your reason 3 is the most important to consider. You suggest, 'Maybe there is an unseen order.' I am interested to know more about this.

Do you think that the basis of being born into a tradition is of that much significance nowadays? The reason why I ask this is because we live in such an information age that I wonder to what extent the ideas we are brought up with are likely to be held to firmly for the rest of our lives.

You mentioned the idea of indoctrination and this is important to consider. I think that this involves the whole hypnotic power of beliefs and I wonder to what extent can we break free from it?

How do you think that we can go to the heart of this issue authentically, but without being bound to intellectualisation?

I think that this involves the whole hypnotic power of beliefs and I wonder to what extent can we break free from it? — Jack Cummins

From a zen point of view you could see when you were young but you are too young to appreciate it or your youth is corrupted. The hypnotism is a veil that is built up over time so you no longer see. We need to remove the veil, to break free of the hypnotism. This is analogous to switching off the TV, and uncoupling from all sources of indoctrination and programming. As long as we have free will (or at least that we think we have), its application of free will to remove the veil. It's easier said than done. And it's not done by saying.

But habit is born out of practice, and not intent. And it's only through practice that we can do it. The psychological perspective is that the action enforces the habit and that feeds the reinforcement of intent, which is a bit counterintuitive maybe. The action provides confidence for intent and not vice versa.

There is nice line in one of my texts on Buddhism I paraphrase now as I can't find it online but it's analogous to this:

"Too much study without reflection is indoctrination. Too much reflection without study is desolation"

It's the same principle I feel. We should never be getting too much information without reflecting on it. If we have no time for reflection, then surely we have no choice but to cut down on the information.

I do believe that it is essential that we hold on to the need to be able to hold onto the search for truth, wherever it takes us, into the rocky banks of seas of uncertainty. For some, it may lead into an abyss of nihilistic uncertainty and, for others to a spiritual paradise of knowing. I journey in between the two and embrace existentialist perspectives alongside aspects of Western and Eastern spiritual philosophies. I suppose one question is to what extent is it about objective searching and knowing and how much is it about psychological need? Personally, I admit that I have a certain amount of searching for what I wish to find, but objective questions about truth matter as well, in a very deep sense.

I would say that the balance between too much information and too much reflection time is complex. I often feel overwhelmed by both of them. I have so many books to read and that is not counting the online resources. The endless time of reflection, and I am not a good sleeper which means that I think a lot about these issues in the night.

Thee whole prospect of the amount of information and time spent in reflection means that we have a lot of work to do. The one thing that I would say that I do wish is that the quest can be pleasurable too, because I think that without a certain amount of fun and light relief it would all become too overwhelming and beyond our human capabilities. I am not meaning to dismiss the seriousness of the quest, but if there is a higher power overseeing us in our own philosophical pursuit, I cannot believe that this being would want it to be nothing but torture and agony.

I am glad to meet you on the forum. It is interesting to interact with someone who comes from the complete opposite angle of having been raised in an atheist background. In contrast, I was brought up with the belief that I had God watching me, in every moment. This did make me feel fearful but it did lead me to a sense of not being alone. I felt that I had a friend in the form of Jesus, as the son of God, and was brought up in the tradition of praying.

I wonder how much of that affects us even in the present. I say that because even though I don't hold to the beliefs I was taught, I think that I still do act as though I am in touch with some higher power. This probably is related to the way that I do still feel that I have some relationships with some underlying higher power in the universe, and this proceeds from my initial background. I wonder how your background still affects you, and whether it affects you as you go through the day to day experience of life.

To find our own mythic structure of meaning seems worthwhile to me, but this might mean that we are in the minority of the extraordinary. — Jack Cummins

Why would a personal structure of meaning need to be mythic?

What drives religion is a sense of lack, a sense of groundlessness, the sense that life itself is an illusion. It’s the search for something that won’t perish.

Ironically, for the same reason people need scientific beliefs and ideas. To avoid fright and confusion. Or to benefit themselves and *scoffs* of course, the world around them and all of humanity.. :grin:

Thanks for replying to my thread. I went out for a walk in the park after writing the question and have spent the evening going through the replies, and worked upwards.

I do believe that the ideas of William James are essential to the understanding of why religion is important. I also believe that other writers' views are important too, including those of Carl Jung, Mircea Eliade and all ot those who have explored the psychological and comparative aspects of religion.

When you speak of the possibility of destruction in relation to this, I do wonder how nihilism fits into the picture. Personally, I do have times when I feel that there is no objective meaning. I cannot always separate this from depression on a personal level. In other words, it is not always clear whether my own depression leads to lack of belief in any higher power being involved in the enrollment of life, or the opposite way round. Nevertheless, I am still inclined to the view that personal and collective survival matter still matter, but I can see that it is a dodgy area because once we get into the area of a godless world it is possible for all meaning to collapse.

The one thing that I would say that I do wish is that the quest can be pleasurable too, because I think that without a certain amount of fun and light relief it would all become too overwhelming and beyond our human capabilities. — Jack Cummins

I know what you mean. I've learned to deal with it to a degree but it's certainly a challenge. Some days are better than others. I welcome distractions as an opportunity to switch context and let it percolate in the subconscious, so long as it's not too much of a distraction. I do believe, we are more productive with downtime, and a varied diet of mental, physical and spiritual exercise.

Perhaps religious belief or lack of it can both be overwhelming. Without religion, it all seems illusionary, but, on the other hand, if we see ourselves in the hand of the almighty, as in facing the wrath of Jahweh of The Old Testament, it can be rather stressful, as evident in the writings of Kierkergaard.

William James' look at religious experiences also concerned his effort to make the "psychological" a perspective of common experiences that could be recognized beyond the arguments between philosophers and theologians. At roughly the same time, there were thinkers like Kierkegaard who argued that "psychology" could not go where one actually decides what direction will be taken by an individual.
Is that sort of difference a part of a dialectic that will eventually become a story of past conflicts or a divide that will continue to divide?

I love that book by William James. What I missed in it was a discussion of practices that increased the powers of perception and/or the ability to do things. The sort of experiences the Taoist suggested were possible.

I do believe that science give us some certainty, but even that can make us feel under a rigid agenda of medical views and diagnostic criteria. Long before the crisis of the pandemic, we have been evaluating ourselves under guidelines about health and wellbeing. I am not saying that this is not important but even this has a mythical level of seeing our lives.

↪Nikolas
I do believe that it is essential that we hold on to the need to be able to hold onto the search for truth, wherever it takes us, into the rocky banks of seas of uncertainty. For some, it may lead into an abyss of nihilistic uncertainty and, for others to a spiritual paradise of knowing. I journey in between the two and embrace existentialist perspectives alongside aspects of Western and Eastern spiritual philosophies. I suppose one question is to what extent is it about objective searching and knowing and how much is it about psychological need? Personally, I admit that I have a certain amount of searching for what I wish to find, but objective questions about truth matter as well, in a very deep sense. — Jack Cummins

Can the seeker of objective truth through science and/or religious psychology make progress without first experiencing either satori in Zen, Metanoia in Christianity, or inwardly turning towards the light described by Plato? If it is necessary to open to reality beyond the limitations of our senses. The question becomes what it means to inwardly turn towards the light with the whole of ourselves to experience the essential truths beyond what our senses are capable of.?

I think that William James was writing at a particular time and it did, inevitably leave a lot of questions about what we can do in this process. One book which I am reading currently, which explores the connections we can make with any divine power in the universe is by Dr Joe Dispenza, (2017) 'Becoming Supernatural: How Common People Are Doing the Uncommon'.

This book is looking at the idea of transformation and I think that it is useful. However, I am aware that the idea of the 'supernatural' is open to question in its own right, and I think that such ideas do need to be subject to philosophical analysis.

The working definition of religion which I will offer is one offered by William James in, 'The Varieties of Religious Experience' :
'Were one asked to characterise the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.' — Jack Cummins

That's a pretty good non-sectarian definition of Religion. So, in that case, Albert Einstein was a religious person. But I would distinguish between a personal unofficial Philosophy and a communal doctrinal Religion.

I call my "belief in an unseen order" in Nature, and my attempt to "harmoniously adjust thereto", merely a personal philosophical worldview. However, most people are not so rationally or philosophically inclined; hence their "need" for a religious community of faith & feeling, may result from the cognitive dissonance between their intuition of "Order" in the world, despite the obvious Disorders of life, and their uncertainty about the ambivalent "Unseen" organizer. Having a scriptural authority for your belief, releases you from responsibility for personally resolving the "need" for assurance that someone is in control, and that things are going to be alright.

Those who are philosophically opposed to any form of Supernaturalism or Religion though, may either deny the inherent order of Nature (emphasizing randomness instead), or place their trust in Science (to reveal the self-ordering powers of evolution). :smile:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
____Albert Einstein

"there is found a third level of religious experience, even if it is seldom found in a pure form. I will call it the cosmic religious sense. This is hard to make clear to those who do not experience it, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought."
___Albert Einstein, Religion and Science

"We're hand-wired to avoid uncertainty, because it makes us feel lots of negative emotions,"
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/17/coronavirus-psychology-of-uncertainty-not-knowing-whats-next.html

For the reasons stated in my previous post before (and culminating with) the "alcohol and opium" sentence. If you disagree, or think my reasons are besides the point, do tell, Jack. As for the need for myths (i.e. metanarratives?), sure, as long as we're not conflating myths with religions – the latter is the former but the former does not necessarily (and is better for it when they don't) become the latter.

It would certainly be unreasonable to expect James to solve the problem (or question) of what is "supernatural." I don't think Kierkegaard's challenge regarding the limits of psychology regard that element.