How can people still take the Bible or other the religious texts literally?

[apl68]

Well, so what? What's the harm in believing something that doesn't exist? Live and let live! To each his own!  Or Spadify! Well, at the very least, to the extent that people make decisions based on an illusion, they are losing out on fully living in the real world, you know, the one we are currently living in and actually exists.

Another issue is finite resources. All the time, money and other resources spent on fostering an illusion are not spent on dealing with actual problems in the real world. A personal example: My sister and her husband are conservative Lutherans and true believers. Ok, great! More power to them! Right? However, one source of great stress in my sister's life is that her husband insists on tithing (they donate $$,$$$ every year) although they really cannot afford it, what with my sister's disability which keeps her out of the workforce and the fact that they have two children in college (yes, they have loans and financial aid, but they have to pay some themselves). She will never put it so bluntly, but she is hurt that they cannot even afford to take vacations anymore and they scrimp and save (and I mean really scrimp and save) when they are giving away so much money.

A couple of thoughts.  First, I don't see how it's not possible for one who believes in a life to come to live fully in this one.  I've known many strong believers in the life to come.  Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, rich and poor and in between, educated and uneducated.  Some have had generally fortunate lives, some have gotten a pretty raw deal out of life.  They all seem to me to have lived pretty full lives, no two of them just alike.

Second, while you no doubt have examples to cite of people who have taken money they once spent on religion and put it to better use, I don't see much evidence of  our increasingly post-religious society in general making wiser use of resources than it did in its more religious days.  If anything the decline of religious practice has been accompanied by dramatic increases in alcohol and drug abuse, ever-growing amounts of screen time that's mostly a waste of time, a growing prevalence of dysfunctional relationships of all kinds, and a growth in consumer wastefulness that has largely cancelled out any environmental progress we've made.  None of this makes it seem like we as a society are getting any better at using resources as we leave religion behind--or are living more fulfilling lives, for that matter. 

It's hard for me to speak specifically of your sister and brother-in-law's situation since I don't know more about it.  Maybe he is mistaken in insisting on paying a legalistic, formulaic tithe of the family funds when they can't really afford it.  Tithing is an Old Testament formula that so many ostensibly New Testament churches have latched onto.  The New Testament teaches stewardship, the idea that all our resources are to be managed with an eye to serving God.  It's not me giving God 10% of my money, it's a recognition that ALL resources rightfully belong to God.  There are times when good stewardship can mean taking care of family needs first.  Then again, some people can afford to give much more than 10% of their finances to God's service, if they make it a real priority.  Again, I don't know enough about the specific situation to tell whether your brother is misguided, or whether perhaps your sister is.  Or maybe they're both doing what they really should be, and she, being only human, just feels hurt about it sometimes.

[marshwiggle]

In both of these cases, the original question of the thread was around how people could support religious belief. The points I've made have been to suggest that religious belief can be logically consistent. It is reasonable to reject logically inconsistent worldviews, whether they are religious or not, but it is also reasonable to have respect for logically consistent ones, even if you don't agree with them. And to evaluate whether a view is logically consistent, you have to consider whether the unprovable assumptions, if they were true, would make the system of belief logically consistent.

So, whether there is "a metaphysical or supernatural presence in the world" and/or "an afterlife" cannot be proven. What can be evaluated is whether any system of belief including those is internally consistent. That doesn't prove it, but it does allow a rational person to follow it honestly.

Sigh. You "win," I guess. Still, there isn't any afterlife. Yes, I state it that boldly, because:

1. There is absolutely no proof an afterlife exists.

Do "dark matter" and "dark energy" exist?

Dark matter is composed of particles that do not absorb, reflect, or emit light, so they cannot be detected by observing electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter is material that cannot be seen directly.

(And is thought to account for 85% of the "matter" in the universe.)

How is that any less metaphysical than God or heaven?

Physicists aren't usually thought to be a fanciful lot.

2. Although we cannot actually prove 100% that the afterlife does not exist, much that we know about the world and our bodies, suggests, no, screams that it does not. Do people really believe that we will be resurrected in our bodies? Really? In spite of all we know for a fact happens to physical bodies after death? But maybe it is just the "soul" that has eternal life? But what does that even mean to live without a body? What will there be in heaven? Will there be a future and a past? Will there be time? Will you make plans and have goals? Will you just remain in a state of endless praise of God? Will there be choirs? Will there be organized sports? (You think I jest, but in a Pew Research survey, 20% of those who believed in the afterlife thought there would be sports teams.)

Since, more or less by definition, no-one who has been there has been able to talk about it, it makes sense that any ideas about the afterlife would be extremely vague; the idea that human consciousness transcends the physical body is the important point.

3. What we do know about human psychology gives us a very convincing and simple explanation for the belief an afterlife: collective wishful thinking. And to that you might add political convenience. How better to get a bunch of people to submit to your authority than the humongous spiritual carrot of heaven and stick of hell. And no one can ever prove they don't exist. Genius solution!


Well, so what? What's the harm in believing something that doesn't exist? Live and let live! To each his own!  Or Spadify! Well, at the very least, to the extent that people make decisions based on an illusion, they are losing out on fully living in the real world, you know, the one we are currently living in and actually exists.

Another issue is finite resources. All the time, money and other resources spent on fostering an illusion are not spent on dealing with actual problems in the real world.

From much of the research I've seen, religious people on average give more to charities, even non-religious ones, than non-religious people.

But back to the afterlife. For a very moving take on an atheist's view of what happens to us after we die, see: daylight atheism: stardust, particularly the last full paragraph.

That's very poetic and well-written.

The point is, a person's wordview influences how they interpret reality. The thing that stands out to me from there is how much the writer yearns for something transcendent.

I mentioned earlier how many veterans' graves there are to be seen in this cemetery, but even beyond the sad legacy of hatred and warfare inextricably bound up with our history, there are more common, more mundane instances of inhumanity even in our daily lives. How much do most of us do to help those in need? How often do we put our own desires and feelings ahead of other people's? How often do we remember that those we meet in everyday life, as well as those starving and dying in conflicts around the globe, are not just statistics or faceless strangers, but other human beings who feel, dream and have hopes and aspirations just as we do?

If the body we see is indeed the closest continuer of a departed loved one, it makes sense to pay our respects.

I chose to come to this place in order to have these thoughts, in order to reflect on our mortality. I do not view this as morbid at all, but as one of the most powerful affirmations of life there is. Nothing else I know of makes one appreciate and cherish life as much as a walk through a graveyard; nothing else makes one realize just how fragile, and therefore how valuable, life really is.

I also view this experience as a test, the most profound test of an atheist, to see if I truly live my life in accordance with the principles I claim to follow.

If I, as an atheist, can confront it and still endure, then I will know that the worldview I have chosen can withstand the harsh truths of reality.

We cannot prevent death, and so instead we should do the next best thing: work to make sure that life is not wasted, that both our lives and the lives of those around us are filled with happiness and purpose and free from suffering.

Once or twice I see other people standing over graves in the distance, but it is a large cemetery, and that is all. No voices, no sounds from the outside world disturb the reverent silence. I cannot say I am ungrateful for the solitude, but still, does no one else come to these peaceful graves? Does no one else remember these people? They must have living relatives, somewhere among the branching and intertwining family trees. Are these distant ancestors, people to whom their living descendants never felt particularly close? Do people become so involved with the minutiae of day-to-day life that they forget to pay their respects as often as they would like?

Might it be that our all-too-frequent lack of respect for human life, the dreary mundanity that pervades so many of our own lives, the absence of a true spirituality in human society, all ultimately stem from our reluctance to confront death and acknowledge that it awaits us all?

I firmly believe that, if we ever fully realized the fragility of life and the finality of death, we would never speak a word of anger or impatience to anyone close to us in our lives ever again. Such an epiphany might have other beneficial effects as well. It might help us realize that there are more important things than money and material gains. It might make us less willing to expend the future for the sake of the present. Almost certainly, it would give us perspective, help us see beyond the everyday – help us recover some of that sense of spirituality, that sense of cosmic awe, that is found in our lives far too rarely.

But the molecules that once were me will still exist. The atoms that made up my body – iron, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, all the heavy elements forged in the crucibles of dying stars – will remain. Liberated from their temporary home, they will rejoin the rest of the planet, taking new shapes, finding new arrangements, becoming part of other life. I will become merged with everything.

I will become part of the trees that grow wherever my ashes are scattered, joining the ecosystem of the forest. I will be in the slow green heartwood of the trunks as they patiently tick off the centuries, in the buds that burst forth in spring and in the leaves that explode with color in autumn. I will be the sparkle of sunlight on the surface of a flowing mountain stream. I will sink into the earth and mix with the groundwater, eventually flowing back and rejoining the ocean where all life on this planet ultimately began. I will be in the waves that crash on the shore, in the warm sheltered tidal pools, in the coral reefs that bloom with life, and in the depths that echo with whale songs. I will be subducted into the planet's core and join the three-hundred-million-year cycle of the continental plates. I will rise into the sky and, in the fullness of time, become dispersed throughout the atmosphere, until every breath will contain part of me. And billions of years from now, when our sun swells and blasts the Earth's atmosphere away, I will be there, streaming into space to rejoin the stars that gave my atoms birth. And perhaps some day, billions of years yet beyond that, on some distant planet beneath bright alien skies, an atom that once was part of me will take part in a series of chemical reactions that may ultimately lead to new life – life that will in time leave the sea that gave it birth, crawl up onto the beach, and look up into the cosmos and wonder where it came from.

For an essay about the finality of death, the writer is absolutely convinced of the importance of values that are universal, of the need to "pay respects" to non-existent people,
and that somehow the ongoing existence of the atoms from a person's body still have some significance in consequence.

The attempt to claim belief in a purely material world is riddled with reverence for abstractions like values, humanity, compassion, and so on.

[apl68]

I do know that following Jesus leads to a different understanding of what counts as "fulfilling" and what is good use of resources. 

Here's a situation I know intimately.  My father has a very well-developed mind, with a strong aptitude for mathematics and spatial reasoning.  He went to college intending to go into architecture or engineering.  Instead he found himself called to preach and to pastor small rural churches as a bi-vocational minister.  He altered his college plans and studied for the ministry.  His family did not pressure him into this--they insisted that he think long and hard before taking that step, even though his father had already been serving as a bi-vocational minister himself.

So Dad spent many years pastoring small churches and making a living at several occupations.  Mostly he laid bricks five days a week to support our family, studied to deliver pastoral messages on Wednesdays and Sundays, and engaged in such pastoral work as making three-hour round trips to Little Rock to visit people in the hospital.  He did other things too, like using some of his limited available time off to go on short-term mission trips.  And rescuing stranded people from the local interstate highway, arranging for temporary lodging and helping them to get their vehicles fixed.  Sometimes they were Spanish speakers, and Mom, being a Spanish teacher, was able to help translate.  He made sure to set an example of giving financially to the church, even when that sometimes meant giving more than he was receiving from them in salary.

My brother and I weren't deprived growing up.  But we did grow up without pricey vacations and a lot of other stuff that even rural kids not uncommonly get in modern America.  We grew up accustomed to using stuff until it was used up, and living in a house with a very home-made look, because Dad had built it himself (With some help from brothers and church members--they helped each other out on stuff like that some). 

We could have had more money and time to do fun stuff with if we hadn't gone to church.  But looking back, I don't feel like we missed out (Well, it would have been nice to have done some camping out--wouldn't have cost either much money or time, but Dad wasn't into it, and Mom sure wasn't).  Mom and Dad have never indicated that they feel they missed out.  I think my brother feels the same way.  It's not like we grew up in a joyless household.  It was a place of regular hugs and I-love-yous and laughter.  It was also a place where trying to serve God was a priority.  I didn't grow up seeing any conflict between these things.

With no family of my own to support, I could live much better than I do on my librarian's salary.  There are trips I could take and stuff I could have.  But I'd rather spend what I have on showing Jesus' love by helping to meet their needs.  It's not about trying to meet some 10% target (I've been going well over that in recent years).  It's about making priorities in life.  My priorities are informed by what I learn in God's word, and how God's word informs what I observe in the world around me.  The more I take the Bible--all of it--seriously, the more I feel free to serve other people, instead of trying desperately to grab all the fleeting happiness I can before dying.  That's another reason why I take the Bible's teachings at face value.

[kaysixteen]

apl is quite right about the other form of 'religion lite' that she mentioned.   She lives in a part of the  country that sees much more of this than an overly secularized place like Mass. 

The nature of the afterlife is an important question for Christians (or for that matter for adherents to any faith system) to discuss amongst themselves, but perhaps it is less important for it to be discussed in general amongst folks of different faith perspectives (though, of course, Pascal's wager remains a  thing).   But even theism does not require an afterlife, and these would be two different questions.

Tithing is an example of something latched upon by many churches, using OT precepts incorrectly applied to a church, and often with more or less explicit financial motivations.  But it does not matter, when discussing the concept of just how much good has been done by individual Christians, churches, and denominations, over the years, with the money their people have given, often very sacrificially so.  There really are no corresponding examples that atheists can show here.

[Wahoo Redux]

Second, while you no doubt have examples to cite of people who have taken money they once spent on religion and put it to better use, I don't see much evidence of  our increasingly post-religious society in general making wiser use of resources than it did in its more religious days.  If anything the decline of religious practice has been accompanied by dramatic increases in alcohol and drug abuse, ever-growing amounts of screen time that's mostly a waste of time, a growing prevalence of dysfunctional relationships of all kinds, and a growth in consumer wastefulness that has largely cancelled out any environmental progress we've made.  None of this makes it seem like we as a society are getting any better at using resources as we leave religion behind--or are living more fulfilling lives, for that matter. 

Well...okay, apl, but do you have anything that can definitely tie any of that to religion?

I might wonder at the notion that the generations of the 20s-50s did a particularly good job of making use of our "resources."  I mean, the 60s environmental movement didn't come out of thin air, nor the Cold War (talk about a waste of resources!), nor even the television (which I am not sure is such a bad thing).  And I really doubt the notion that relationships are more dysfunctional than they ever have been; I really doubt that.

And, as always, we need point out that a great many of these religious Americans were slave-owners, then Jim-Crow-purveyors, etc.  Not to mention, again, the relationship between the Nazis and the Catholic church.

I'm just not sure you can argue what you just argued.

[Parasaurolophus]

And I really doubt the notion that relationships are more dysfunctional than they ever have been; I really doubt that.

Given how widespread and accepted abuse (in all its forms) was until very recently, yeah, I don't buy it either.

If you're looking for examples of money that was once spent on religion and is now put to better use, I'd suggest looking at the social safety net. Even in a shithole country like the US, the extant social safety net, such as it is, is more effective and efficient than the collection plate.

[marshwiggle]

And I really doubt the notion that relationships are more dysfunctional than they ever have been; I really doubt that.

Given how widespread and accepted abuse (in all its forms) was until very recently, yeah, I don't buy it either.

If you're looking for examples of money that was once spent on religion and is now put to better use, I'd suggest looking at the social safety net. Even in a shithole country like the US, the extant social safety net, such as it is, is more effective and efficient than the collection plate.

That's not  a fair comparison. Since the collection plate is voluntary, but the social safety net is paid for by compulsory taxes, the amount of money involved (and the source) are totally unrelated. If you wanted to do that fairly, you'd do something like comparing, on a per-capita basis, how much religious people contribute to social causes (including money used for those purposes through religious agencies) to the amount of taxes, again on a per-capita basis, that go to the same causes. You'd also have to factor in efficiency. Good religious charities have very low overhead, whereas some government agencies have very high overhead.

[apl68]

And I really doubt the notion that relationships are more dysfunctional than they ever have been; I really doubt that.

Given how widespread and accepted abuse (in all its forms) was until very recently, yeah, I don't buy it either.

If you're looking for examples of money that was once spent on religion and is now put to better use, I'd suggest looking at the social safety net. Even in a shithole country like the US, the extant social safety net, such as it is, is more effective and efficient than the collection plate.

That's not  a fair comparison. Since the collection plate is voluntary, but the social safety net is paid for by compulsory taxes, the amount of money involved (and the source) are totally unrelated. If you wanted to do that fairly, you'd do something like comparing, on a per-capita basis, how much religious people contribute to social causes (including money used for those purposes through religious agencies) to the amount of taxes, again on a per-capita basis, that go to the same causes. You'd also have to factor in efficiency. Good religious charities have very low overhead, whereas some government agencies have very high overhead.

Re the social safety net, churches, along with extended family, WERE the social safety net long before secular governments got involved.  And the architects of the social safety net were in large part believers who saw creating a secular social safety net as a way of mobilizing government's resources to create a more godly society.  The social safety net as we know it was in most respects in place before the recent wholesale decline in religious observance.  Yes, I know that many religious voters vote for candidates who have undermined the safety net in recent years.  It's shameful how many professing Christians are failing to follow Jesus' commandments to meet the needs of those around them.  That and other voter phenomena we've been seeing in recent years is a measure of how many believers are not paying enough attention to what the Bible says, rather than too much.

[apl68]

And I really doubt the notion that relationships are more dysfunctional than they ever have been; I really doubt that.

Given how widespread and accepted abuse (in all its forms) was until very recently, yeah, I don't buy it either.

Really?  You really don't see the wholesale collapse of nuclear and extended family structures across so much of society, and the rise of the disposable marriage, as signs of growing relational dysfunction?  One can argue causation, but there's certainly a big correlation there.

[Wahoo Redux]

And I really doubt the notion that relationships are more dysfunctional than they ever have been; I really doubt that.

Given how widespread and accepted abuse (in all its forms) was until very recently, yeah, I don't buy it either.

Really?  You really don't see the wholesale collapse of nuclear and extended family structures across so much of society, and the rise of the disposable marriage, as signs of growing relational dysfunction?  One can argue causation, but there's certainly a big correlation there.

Forgive me, but God bless divorce!!!   You're imagining a world in which the nuclear and extended family was automatically a good thing, was automatically functional, and should be preserved.  This was simply not the case.  We had dysfunction, abuse, and familial collapse and people entrapped by societal norms and the situation swept under the rug.  The family may be redefining itself now, divorce may be the new norm, but this is a good thing. 

And again, can any of this be tied to religion?  In context of the above, I would say that religion, particularly the Catholic church, held people in a kind of earthbound, human-made hell.

Religion has done much good in the world, there is no doubt about that.   But we can't pretend that it is the best way to do good.

[Parasaurolophus]

And I really doubt the notion that relationships are more dysfunctional than they ever have been; I really doubt that.

Given how widespread and accepted abuse (in all its forms) was until very recently, yeah, I don't buy it either.

Really?  You really don't see the wholesale collapse of nuclear and extended family structures across so much of society, and the rise of the disposable marriage, as signs of growing relational dysfunction?  One can argue causation, but there's certainly a big correlation there.

Really, for the reasons Wahoo stated. I don't think of relationships which are characterized by marital rape and other sexual violence, physical abuse (of wife and children, to be clear), verbal abuse, and substance abuse (viz. alcohol) to be especially 'functional'. People made do, but we're a lot better off now that, for example, we don't beat the living crap out of our kids just so that they'll remember special events (e.g. public executions). And, of course, now that women and children are afforded equal rights and protections under the law.

Like Wahoo, I think that the relative ease of divorce is a fine thing. And, for the record, I grew up with a single parent.

[apl68]

And I really doubt the notion that relationships are more dysfunctional than they ever have been; I really doubt that.

Given how widespread and accepted abuse (in all its forms) was until very recently, yeah, I don't buy it either.

Really?  You really don't see the wholesale collapse of nuclear and extended family structures across so much of society, and the rise of the disposable marriage, as signs of growing relational dysfunction?  One can argue causation, but there's certainly a big correlation there.

Forgive me, but God bless divorce!!!   You're imagining a world in which the nuclear and extended family was automatically a good thing, was automatically functional, and should be preserved.  This was simply not the case.  We had dysfunction, abuse, and familial collapse and people entrapped by societal norms and the situation swept under the rug.  The family may be redefining itself now, divorce may be the new norm, but this is a good thing. 

No, I'm not imagining an idyllic world of the past.  I'm far too much of an historian to believe in golden ages of that sort.  I've also suffered in an abusive marriage myself.  But I do not believe that abuse was so near-universal that today's world of divorce--or relationships that never involved marriage in the first place--is an improvement.  I've seen plenty of divorces where there was no abuse where the marriage--and the children's home life--could have been saved if there had been a greater commitment to it.  The initiators of these divorces have told me so themselves.

I never said in the first place that the society of the past in which religious belief was the norm was any sort of ideal.  A previous poster asserted that the decline of religious belief would make the world a better place.  What I was trying to say is that we've not seen much evidence of that happening despite the decline of recent decades.  Maybe you disagree with me that things have gotten worse off in the last few decades.  But pretty much nobody right now seems to be of the opinion that they're doing better.  If a decline in religious observance is supposed to make for a better society, then it doesn't seem to have been working so far.  That was my original point.

[Wahoo Redux]

I am a divorcee myself, and while there was nothing that could be construed as abuse on either part, I thank Heavens for the ability for the two of us to go our separate ways. 

I may have to disagree with you about the last 20 years or so----the years of religious decline----as being "worse" than anything that has come before.  I could come up with a pretty long list of examples for how we are better off, but I suspect they are all stuff we know. 

Our current moment is doing badly because of a pandemic that is not as terrible as the last Spanish Flu pandemic and a president that is supported by evangelicals.  And even now, given that at one point in time it would not be an issue to shoot an unarmed black man, things are better.

[downer]

And AFAIK, Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in the afterlife

Yes, they do. But there is limited seating in heaven.

Based on their understanding of scriptures such as Revelation 14:1-4, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that exactly 144,000 faithful Christians go to heaven to rule with Christ in the kingdom of God. (from Wikipedia).

I've always been curious why they don't think heaven is already full up by now.

[Kron3007]

And I really doubt the notion that relationships are more dysfunctional than they ever have been; I really doubt that.

Given how widespread and accepted abuse (in all its forms) was until very recently, yeah, I don't buy it either.

Really?  You really don't see the wholesale collapse of nuclear and extended family structures across so much of society, and the rise of the disposable marriage, as signs of growing relational dysfunction?  One can argue causation, but there's certainly a big correlation there.

There is also the issue that divorce is not limited to the non-religious.  The collapse of the family unit seems quite prevalant in religious families as well, so I think this goes beyond religion and has more to do with other cultural shifts (so yes, I would argue causation).  I also know many non-religious families that simply did not get married but live as a family unit and have been together for many years, so marriage is not the only way for family units to exist.

This reminds me of when I moved to Mississippi.  What stood out to me is how many very young pregnant women and mothers there were.  Many religious people will try to act as though religion and abstinence is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy, meanwhile teenage pregnancy rates are higher in more religious states.