Did you make the choice to be / not be religious?

[the0logical]

Just been reading another thread on here about religion and I always think the theological discussions on here are fascinating.

I'll start - I identify as an athiest, I was brought up in a non-religious family but attended heavily Catholic schools. I didn't like some of the ideologies that became mixed into the religious elements of my schooling (e.g. through correlation or randomness, the most "devout" children were always the most prejudiced) and this pushed me away from entering into any faith. I studied Philosophy & Religion at a higher level and then learned about my perception of fallacies in most major religions, which I couldn't seem to logically support especially when I didn't have any feelings of faith. I've never felt the capacity to let myself be succumbed by a religion, though I have tried - I just don't believe.

So, guess I'm just curious to know some reasons why people are / aren't religious and how much of a "choice" it is. Not a reporter before anyone asks, just a nerd who loves anecdotes especially in a religious debate!

YABU - I made an active choice to become religious, or to become non-religious
YANBU - I didn't make any choice, I have always believed / never believed
(hoping that makes sense!)

@Teaandakitkat

I think this is very interesting, especially how frequently it seems to be mentioned by those with faith that God and goodness are inherently tied. That's an utterly terrifying prospect to me, personally, and I couldn't imagine having my moral integrity dependent on the existence or non-existence of a higher being

Of course you can be good without God. But in my experience only good things are done in God's name. I realise my experience seems not to be the norm.

Peadophilia has been carried out in gods name. Pregnant women have been locked up in gods name. HIV has been spread in gods name.

@TheKeatingFive agree that what happened in Tuam and Smyllum was on another level. I don't think #notallcatholics or "it was a long time ago" is sufficient response to hundreds of dead babies in a sewer. Tuam only closed sixty years ago. The survivors are still alive as are families of the dead and trafficked.

Plus as @LadyfromtheBelleEpoque points out, it's not even as though the church has dealt with the findings in an open and honest way. Tuam was only discovered because of Catherine Corless. The church consistently denied until she found the bodies. Even then, they were like oh it's a one off. Then people in Scotland found Smyllum. Again after years of denial by the church. And the church's response to that was to try to sell the land for development before any other information could get out. This was four years ago. Not ancient history.

Now it looks like there are other numerous similar sites across Ireland and Scotland. Again, the church is saying no.

Eventually at Tuam they agreed to investigate. Then they tried to push a bill through to keep the findings sealed for thirty years. Ofc in thirty years any survivors and family members are long gone. Then they said ok we'll make a memorial to the victims. We'll find their names and honour them. But the latest on that is that they can only find sixteen victims. There are 800 bodies in that sewer.

So: it's not "a long time ago" and they're not "doing their best".

Corless is on record as saying she has now lost her faith. She is far from alone in this.

As for "it's all wider society too" that is not how the church works in Ireland and to a degree in Scotland. When those girls and women were sent to the institutions that neglected and starved their babies and put them in sewers, priests were standing in pulpits condemning them and their families to ostracism, joblessness and homelessness if they did not comply.

The church is absolutely responsible and has consistently failed to take responsibility and is still failing to take responsibility. Not just historically but now.

LadyfromtheBelleEpoque I agree that within many communities now, religious groups can be part of removing barriers and reducing suffering, sometimes the only visible one to some. In other areas, it can be certain political groups are the only ones visible - I live in an area where if there is an issue, the best bet for getting anything done is oddly often our councillors who are all ex-UKIP (and have since been a few different flavours of independent but same thinking). Some areas are largely abandoned by other means of help - it shouldn't be that way, but I agree that is the way of things at this time.

The flip to that is when they are the only ones visibly doing something, it makes it even riskier that if anything negatives comes up that it would get brushed under the carpet - it's hard to challenge what can feel like one's only ally. That there are many painful and horrific examples of that happening are why some religious organizations have created governing bodies that include community members outside of the faithful. To be vigilant against corruption, it takes having multiple perspectives who will look at the impact of actions and there are many people like myself who are willing to work alongside and with religious groups with that accountability to do things.

I think it's easier to point at religious institutions - both in their good and in their bad - than it is to governments or many other social institutions for many reasons, but I don't think religions are unique in either. The idea that religious belief is responsible for the good is one I strongly disagree with in that I think people can desire to do the same good without any specific religious belief, but I think religious groups can create a culture in their communities, which beliefs are part of, where this desire to do good and a very human drive to cooperate is better supported and religious organizations can create social incentives that support people doing good and reducing suffering in a way that wider social systems at this time often creates barriers to doing.

I'm especially interested in those who manage to accept the atrocities of the Catholic Church (as an example) and still support / participate in it.

What, you mean like those who manage to accept the atrocities the UK or any other nation has been recently involved in and still support and/or participate in it (some of us even paying for the privilege to stay as immigrants)?

Religions are systems - they didn't work alone in those atrocities. Police brought runaways back to religious institutions where they were abused, many governments allowed them for a long time to handle their own issues, there was wider social pressure to adhere to their specific religious interpretations - they are a major part of issues in some communities, but they by no means were the only system problem. All the systems had corruption issues that amplified the suffering each was causing and that they caused together.

I'm all for challenging social institutions, and I'm definitely up for challenging things that people claim to be doing for a deity's will or out of ideological purity, but let's not do the whole 'how interesting you participate in a thing that's has horrific aspects' thing. All of us have done that, all of our social institutions have corruption in them.

I think it's important to accept that atrocities are committed by people like me, that that capacity is part of me and that I can still support and participate my community even when we have very different worldviews to reduce suffering as the capacity to do good is also something I have. The ease with which both of those comes partially in the systems around me and those systems incentivize behaviour but I can with others change those systems to make doing things better easier and put up more barriers for everyone, including me, to do harm. For me, this does not involve any claims on divinity, for others, their idea of divinity is part of that and their religious system makes things easier to do what they want even if that then means that challenging corruption becomes part of that.

What, you mean like those who manage to accept the atrocities the UK or any other nation has been recently involved in and still support and/or participate in it (some of us even paying for the privilege to stay as immigrants)?

I’m sorry, but every person has to live in a country with a government, and you’re unlikely to agree with or like everything that has ever happened. But most people don’t have a choice. Religion is a choice.

OP, it's clear by now that you don't rate religious people in the slightest. But at least have some decency and respect those who are going to the trouble to conscientiously and candidly respond to allay the curiosity you said you had

I don't think I've been disrespectful - I have been asking difficult questions, yes, but I wouldn't consider that indecent. I appreciate the input of everyone who has contributed, but I think if you can't ask these questions on an anonymous forum, where can you?

I grew up with a mother who was a stalwart member of an evangelical church, who the married a man who had even stronger religious beliefs. As kids we were forced to Sunday school and bible study, and to put leaflets through people's letterboxes to share the word of God. Fun wasn't a word that featured much in our lives.

Their beliefs, to me, were totally unacceptable: gay men and women are sinners, non-believers will burn in hell, women should not be vicars etc etc. Incredibly bigoted views, but they felt supported in this because of various things it said in the bible. He's dead now and my mother is much less evangelical than she used to be, but it scarred my relationship with them massively.

I hit my teens, and one Sunday planted my feet on the floor and refused to go to church, told them they would have to carry me kicking and screaming if they wanted me to go. I've never been since, apart from weddings and funerals. So a definite choice of no religion for me thanks. Personally I feel organized religion can be incredibly dangerous, and not something I want to be anywhere near. I could never have a partner who was actively religious, regardless of the faith or denomination.

I'm especially interested in those who manage to accept the atrocities of the Catholic Church (as an example) and still support / participate in it. I mean that genuinely, not as antagonistic as it sounds.

Well, because if you’re Catholic, the Church is more than just a human organisation you can take or leave. So it’s not like me saying “Nestle have done some evil things so I won’t buy Kit-Kats, I’ll buy fair trade chocolate instead”.

I’d also consider myself a socialist, while still acknowledging that horrendous things have been done in the name of socialism. I don’t deny the awful things that socialists have done - but I don’t say “okay then I’m switching to laissez-faire capitalism”, because I still believe in the fundamental underlying principles of that political philosophy.

Or maybe: I know someone who’s stood as a MP several times, despite being very very aware of the awful things the UK Parliament has authorised and enabled in the past. He’s still supporting and participating in Parliament, though, and I don’t think that’s a moral contradiction.

I don’t ask you to believe the Catholic Church is anything other than a collection of people and some man-made rules. But you can probably appreciate that Catholics believe it, and therefore have a different approach to switching churches/religions than they would to switching supermarkets or internet providers.

Peadophilia has been carried out in gods name.
Pregnant women have been locked up in gods name.
HIV has been spread in gods name

These things are done by cruel humans who twist religion and build up massive power-hungry institutions to suit their needs. They are not welcomed by God.

I am not denying their actions, I am not justifying them.

I am sad that the quiet, caring, loving, everyday faith of millions of us, of all religions and denominations, is considered so worthless because of the actions of these people.

@Teaandakitkat this is a difficult conversation sometimes. Speaking for myself and myself only I know and see the good that people do arising from their beliefs, and also see the very real hope and comfort they get from belonging to a religious order.

But also and again speaking for myself only being being part of a family that has been devastated by the actions of members of a religion I have decided it is not for me and I am frustrated by responses to that - not yours, as you have been and continue to be most respectful throughout this thread even under provocation - that are along the lines of it happened a long time ago and everyone makes mistakes.

I’m sorry, but every person has to live in a country with a government, and you’re unlikely to agree with or like everything that has ever happened. But most people don’t have a choice. Religion is a choice.

Not everyone gets a choice of participating in religious institutions - historically many people didn't as sometimes it has that much social power, just as governments do.

We do have choice to supporting and participating in government. On a small scale, people with the vote can choose whether or not to vote and how to do so or otherwise get involved with the political process or not or choose alternative means of change. On the big scale, people have fought and died to change their governments, for better and for worse. People like me have immigrated in part because of the governments involved. It can be a hard choice, there are barriers and people have died trying, but for many the same is true of religion. I had to get the British police involved because leaving the faith I was born into resulted in threats to kidnap my children, and I am well aware of other countries that enable that process. We have asylum seekers based on religious belief, it's internationally recognized -- so it seems some of our social systems recognize it's a bit more than a free choice in some situations.

Religions are a network of social systems and incentives. So are governments. They often work together alongside other social systems. That people see the governments as inevitable but religions as just a choice is just the amount of power governments currently have in our set of systems, not anything innate about either. Both of systems of power that lead themselves towards corruption that require vigilance and sometimes direct action to prevent further suffering. Sometimes, the only direct action left for people risks their lives.

Some people get purpose and find it easier to work within religion, others find it through the political process, most people in neither are entirely happy with the systems as they are, but how much they can challenge and change things depends on many factors. Going on about the atrocities of religion as if they did it alone rather than hand in hand with the governments around them I find gives a distorted picture. Religion beliefs alone are not to blame for those atrocities, they are tools used to allow those in power to do what they wanted just as the laws today are often used to do so.

I’m always confused by how people base their disbelief in God by judging him/her by how we think he should be by our standards. What makes people think our time on earth should be idyllic. Do we really think that God should be intervening in all our sufferings. What would be the point in us being on earth. We’re here for a speck in time.......Why are we presuming we should have a perfect life. Something goes wrong.....there can’t be a God, he wouldn’t allow that to happen.

So why would a god allow these things to happen? If you were creating a universe/world and populating it with creatures, would you think "Ooh I know! I'll create some great diseases that will make animals and people die in great pain and suffering! I'll make people able to create more people, but I'll make it really painful and potentially fatal to give birth. And just for fun I'll include some factors that will ensure some babies are born with disabilities. Now, how about some earthquakes and volcanoes, that'll be exciting!" etc etc.

It's not a question of us being arrogant enough to expect a god to intervene to make our lives perfect. It's more a question of why he would deliberately and actively create the such pain, disaster and misery. I mean really...why would you do that?! Religious people often blame these things on humans, with their free will, having brought disaster on themselves. But what about all the awful things that aren't created or caused by humans?

Incidentally, I don't base my non-belief in god on any of that though. I don't believe in god because I just find the idea of a deity preposterous. But if there were a god, he must be a complete arsehole frankly.

@Teaandakitkat this is a difficult conversation sometime

It is, but it's a good one to have. No-one should be complacent. I think this has been a very respectful thread actually compared to some.

Going on about the atrocities of religion as if they did it alone rather than hand in hand with the governments around them I find gives a distorted picture. Religion beliefs alone are not to blame for those atrocities, they are tools used to allow those in power to do what they wanted just as the laws today are often used to do so

I think this is very true. The Magdalene laundries as an example were not run entirely behind closed doors. People knew. The state knew, they must have known. These people were enabled to act as they did. That doesn't excuse them, or excuse the churches for failing to act or for failing to completely and openly apologise now.

I find it very hard to equate the people of faith I know and these people. I find it very interesting to discuss actually.

In fact I find it hard to equate these people with any ordinary people I know, religious or not. I can't understand what drives people to think this behaviour is okay, unless they are just cruel, or so institutionalised and badly treated themselves that they have lost any sense of what is acceptable behaviour.

So why would a god allow these things to happen?

I tend to think that if the whole world was always always good then people would be complacent. Imagine if nothing was ever hard or difficult, we would all just wander around in a big lazy bubble of happiness. Would we eat anything we like and get morbidly obese because we don't have to look after our health? Would we never make difficult decisions because we never had to worry about hunger or poverty? Would we take our friends and family for granted because we never risk losing them?

I realise that is a very naive view, especially when terrible things happen to you and your loved ones. But I don't think God is up there with a big arrow thinking "Oh I'll single this person out for a shit deal today", it's just random. And life is often really, really unfair. But often really beautiful and wonderful too.

Of course you can be good without God. But in my experience only good things are done in God's name

Child exorcisms?

I don't think God is up there with a big arrow thinking "Oh I'll single this person out for a shit deal today"

And yet he's regularly praised for finding new jobs, easing house purchase woes or even finding a parking space in an impossibly congested area.

So why would a god allow these things to happen?

Because in the most ultimate get out of jail free card ever, he moves in mysterious ways. If that doesn't wash the finger's firmly pointed at Satan.

But I don't think God is up there with a big arrow thinking "Oh I'll single this person out for a shit deal today", it's just random.

But if literally everything, including humans and their potential for how they experience things and react to things, was created by god, how can anything be random? God might not 'single individuals out' for a shit deal, but he created every single detail of every shit deal. For example, some humans choose to smoke, but they didn't create cancer. And yes, why do Christians often attribute the good things to god, but somehow claim the bad things are 'random'. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Imagine if nothing was ever hard or difficult, we would all just wander around in a big lazy bubble of happiness. Would we eat anything we like and get morbidly obese because we don't have to look after our health?

No, because god could have created people who don't get obese. Or people who don't have a desire to overeat. Or only food that is good for you.

@BiBabbles

Yes, I agree about accountability across all systems. I actually think that the abstract nature of religious faith is the tool that societies evolved as a way to balance social structures implemented by governments- it was a place to put all the loose ends and bits that don’t fit neatly into systems and as such reflects the irrationality of human nature and life and by acknowledging it, liberated us from having to manage it ourselves.

How can one CHOOSE what to believe?

@JimNolan

Good question Jim - I’m not always sure one can. I think if you are raised in a faith and the language is abstract and allows space for interpretation then may be you can make sense of things through that as it provides an unrestrictive space. If you know a faith of tight rules and literal adherence to traditional beliefs then I don’t know - there seems little intellectual space to ‘think’.

But I have just dealt with someone who has that blind, singular, judgemental attitude you see in religious (and non religious) communities and right now, I agree with the atheists - it’s dangerous to allow some people such space - they use it for control of others.

JimNolan I don't think you can either. I certainly couldn't choose to believe in a god - my brain wouldn't do it.

I was born into Catholicism - eventhough my parents weren't massively religious it was just the done thing, pretty much all state schools back then (in Ireland) were Catholic Ethos, made to go to mass every Sunday, did religion class in school etc Once I was old enough to go to Mass on my own i would pretend i was going but never did, until again i was old enough to just tell my parents i don't believe any of that stuff and won't be going anymore, funnily enough when us kids all stopped going to Mass every Sunday my parents did too hmmmm.

I still think a lot of this is about language - I certainly don’t believe in a wizened Dumbledore like character up in the heavens looking down on us, tutting whilst we go about our business.

My faith is more ecological- that everything is connected and has a purpose - we don’t always know what. We are starting to see, through the pain staking forensic work the scientists have done I’ve the years, just how crucial every insect, every plant is in contributing to the eco system as a whole. We don’t even know the extent of oceanic life and how it fully functions. So, to me I always think that we are the elements in nature but also the sun of those elements and that can be the variability that doesn’t sit with secular systems.

Sun not sun

The whole meaning of life question and how people always tie that to some religious thing, personally I think the meaning of life is just to live it, it's a rare gift and a fleeting one, just live, make some connections and try to make the most of it. Where did we come from? Who knows, I'm not sure humans will ever find that out or have the capacity to understand it even. I just don't believe that there's some being up there expecting us to go to mass and worship him for all our lives and I certainly don't believe anything that's written by men in any books

@AryaStarkWolf I agree with that. Life is to be lived - everything else is secondary.

It’s not really a choice for me. It’s an intrinsic part of my being which I’ve actually tried to deny.

I just accept my spiritual beliefs now.