9 ms·

Good point. The social aspect seems to be the biggest motivating factor for what makes people either join or leave a religion. People often choose to stop a b

Good point. The social aspect seems to be the biggest motivating factor for what makes people either join or leave a religion. People often choose to stop a belief because of the failings of their parents, spiritual leader, etc without thought to their direct relationship with their deity and the belief system itself. - In other words, if you are Catholic and your priest was a criminal does that mean the next logical step is to become an atheist? - If you’re an atheist and science says that the inherent beauty of laws of the universe means that it is a possibility that our world was engineered by powerful being(s) does that mean you should jump your belief all the way to creationism?

paulryanrogers 6y ago
> People often choose to stop a belief because of the failings of their parents, spiritual leader, etc without thought to their direct relationship with their deity and the belief system itself. IME and those I've read about on various ex Reddit subs is that many stop believing because the evidence is non-existent. Learning about the hypocrisy of leadership may push people out of certain organizations, but to stop believing is another thing.
- implements 6y ago
  Lack of evidence for divine Creation, lack of evidence that a particular “revealed truth” is supernatural in origin, moral teachings of a particular faith incompatible with own morals derived from lived experience, religion systematically corrupt or staffed by people of dubious character ...
  - jollofricepeas 6y ago
    For those that become “religious” for social reasons it makes complete sense to leave because of dubious characters but I would argue that all social groups/organizations have dubious characters. For those that become “religious” and see it as their personal mission and spiritual relationship, then the social part has scant importance because the hypocrisy is that of other corruptible individuals.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      The Bible says you can judge a tree by its fruits.
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        What are you trying to say?
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        Not all believers dismiss institutional corruption as isolated cases of universal fallibility.
- jollofricepeas 6y ago
  Choosing to believe we have enough evidence to know/state a definitive answer is belief itself, no? Nobel-winning physicist, Roger Penrose. Question: Do the wonders of physics and the beauty of its laws inspire belief in something that is beyond science? Answer: ‘There is a sense in which I would say I’m an agnostic[...] But that doesn’t mean I’m an atheist. Do I believe in something outside science? Well, it’s a bit hard to know. What is science? Where are its boundaries? Is there something going on in consciousness, which is outside of science? Well, I like not to think that. It is certainly outside the science we have now. But it’s something we can explore scientifically. Whether we will have an understanding of what’s going on, which is deep enough to solve the mystery of what it is to be, I don’t know.’ Source: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-singular-mind-roger-penrose-on-his-nobel-prize https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-singular-mind-roger-pe...
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Is anyone claiming to have definitive answers? I've stopped believing in Christianity because the things I learned about physics and sociology far better explain the evidence that I've seen. Others appear to have done the same. Whether their is some untest-able higher power is irrelevant to my life. And if it can be tested and falsified then given enough time and effort it will be proven. Yet centuries of human effort have been wasted exploring what may simply be a side effect of overzealous agent detection.
    - bavell 6y ago
      > "overzealous agent detection" Great way to put it, definitely going to steal this one! Our brain's pattern recognition circuits are highly developed and we like to anthropomorphize. Tens of thousands of years ago with a lack of scientific knowledge, who else but the gods could we have pointed to in order to explain the world around us?
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        FWIW, "agent detection" is an established concept[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection
- rjbwork 6y ago
  This is the case for me. I basically just realized I had never actually hard anything speaking back to me and had never observed anything super natural. I was basically fully deconverted by about age 16 or 17, mostly just through self examination of my subjective experiences. I find some of these other explanations strange and quite at odds with the experience of me and the rest of my deconverted family.
hallway_monitor 6y ago
I'm considering joining a church almost exclusively for the social aspect. Christianity does teach some good lessons and taking my kids would be a net positive. I wonder how many people who attend church and identify as Christian hold similar views to mine: overall it's a pretty good system but very few stories in the Bible are historically accurate.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Consider joining the Freemasons. They also teach some good lessons but are more tolerant of different beliefs.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    “You must believe in a Supreme Being” killed it for me.
    - millipedegears 6y ago
      "Supreme Being" is just concise and archaic language. This is all it means. "You must believe we may not be in the base level of reality and our universe could be a simulation"
    - EdwardDiego 6y ago
      Turns a bunch of people away from Alcoholics Anonymous too. I mean, I get the gist - admitting something bigger than you exists can help frame your inability to manage your addiction, but yeah, in this day and age, it's an extra barrier.
- dctoedt 6y ago
  UT Austin journalism professor Robert Jensen joined — and was welcomed by — a liberal Austin Presbyterian church even though he didn't believe traditionalist theology, christology, or soteriology. From a Texas Monthly article: "Jensen, who joined the church in 2005, did not come to St. Andrew’s in search of protective cover. On the contrary. In an article posted on the church’s Web site, he explained that he came in search of a moral and political community .... He told the congregation that he did not accept the divinity of Jesus, but he did endorse the core principles in Jesus’ teaching and pledged to be a responsible member if they would have him. That was enough for the folk at St. Andrew’s." [0] (That didn't sit well with traditionalist elements in the larger church and led to ecclesiastical trouble. [1]) [0] https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/st-andrews-presbyterian-church/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/st-andrews-presbyteria... [1] https://killingthebuddha.com/mag/confession/the-inquisition/ https://killingthebuddha.com/mag/confession/the-inquisition/
jariel 6y ago
"for what makes people either join or leave a religion." This is a very American kind of statement. In this world, most people don't 'join' religions - they are born into them, and they are usually a part of the social fabric. In the New World we have this notion that Religions are a bunch of competing ideas, that you can join or unjoin this or that. Joining/unjoining kinds of religions are so fundamentally different things that they probably need different words. Catholicism is so different from Evangelicalism that they probably should not be put in the same boat. Catholicism in many ways is more similar to Judaism than Evangelicalism. Anglicans (Church of England), Catholics (Church of Latin world), Presbyterians (Church of Scotland), Methodists (Church of Some Germans) and Judaism ('Church' of Jews) - should almost be thought of in cultural or ethnic terms as much as religious. The Church has always been a cultural and community centre as much as any place of mere belief. The notion that we treat it almost in terms of 'belief' is a constant fallacy which causes us to often miss the point. Finally - religious fervour moved out of the Church in the last century into left/right wing politics. It's just taking a different form now.
- jariel 6y ago
  Edit: sorry I meant 'Calvinism' as Germanic, not 'Methodist'.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

> People often choose to stop a belief because of the failings of their parents, spiritual leader, etc without thought to their direct relationship with their deity and the belief system itself. IME and those I've read about on various ex Reddit subs is that many stop believing because the evidence is non-existent. Learning about the hypocrisy of leadership may push people out of certain organizations, but to stop believing is another thing.

implements 6y ago
Lack of evidence for divine Creation, lack of evidence that a particular “revealed truth” is supernatural in origin, moral teachings of a particular faith incompatible with own morals derived from lived experience, religion systematically corrupt or staffed by people of dubious character ...
- jollofricepeas 6y ago
  For those that become “religious” for social reasons it makes complete sense to leave because of dubious characters but I would argue that all social groups/organizations have dubious characters. For those that become “religious” and see it as their personal mission and spiritual relationship, then the social part has scant importance because the hypocrisy is that of other corruptible individuals.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    The Bible says you can judge a tree by its fruits.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      What are you trying to say?
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Not all believers dismiss institutional corruption as isolated cases of universal fallibility.
jollofricepeas 6y ago
Choosing to believe we have enough evidence to know/state a definitive answer is belief itself, no? Nobel-winning physicist, Roger Penrose. Question: Do the wonders of physics and the beauty of its laws inspire belief in something that is beyond science? Answer: ‘There is a sense in which I would say I’m an agnostic[...] But that doesn’t mean I’m an atheist. Do I believe in something outside science? Well, it’s a bit hard to know. What is science? Where are its boundaries? Is there something going on in consciousness, which is outside of science? Well, I like not to think that. It is certainly outside the science we have now. But it’s something we can explore scientifically. Whether we will have an understanding of what’s going on, which is deep enough to solve the mystery of what it is to be, I don’t know.’ Source: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-singular-mind-roger-penrose-on-his-nobel-prize https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-singular-mind-roger-pe...
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Is anyone claiming to have definitive answers? I've stopped believing in Christianity because the things I learned about physics and sociology far better explain the evidence that I've seen. Others appear to have done the same. Whether their is some untest-able higher power is irrelevant to my life. And if it can be tested and falsified then given enough time and effort it will be proven. Yet centuries of human effort have been wasted exploring what may simply be a side effect of overzealous agent detection.
  - bavell 6y ago
    > "overzealous agent detection" Great way to put it, definitely going to steal this one! Our brain's pattern recognition circuits are highly developed and we like to anthropomorphize. Tens of thousands of years ago with a lack of scientific knowledge, who else but the gods could we have pointed to in order to explain the world around us?
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      FWIW, "agent detection" is an established concept[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection
rjbwork 6y ago
This is the case for me. I basically just realized I had never actually hard anything speaking back to me and had never observed anything super natural. I was basically fully deconverted by about age 16 or 17, mostly just through self examination of my subjective experiences. I find some of these other explanations strange and quite at odds with the experience of me and the rest of my deconverted family.

hallway_monitor 6y ago

I'm considering joining a church almost exclusively for the social aspect. Christianity does teach some good lessons and taking my kids would be a net positive. I wonder how many people who attend church and identify as Christian hold similar views to mine: overall it's a pretty good system but very few stories in the Bible are historically accurate.

adrianN 6y ago
Consider joining the Freemasons. They also teach some good lessons but are more tolerant of different beliefs.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  “You must believe in a Supreme Being” killed it for me.
  - millipedegears 6y ago
    "Supreme Being" is just concise and archaic language. This is all it means. "You must believe we may not be in the base level of reality and our universe could be a simulation"
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    Turns a bunch of people away from Alcoholics Anonymous too. I mean, I get the gist - admitting something bigger than you exists can help frame your inability to manage your addiction, but yeah, in this day and age, it's an extra barrier.
dctoedt 6y ago
UT Austin journalism professor Robert Jensen joined — and was welcomed by — a liberal Austin Presbyterian church even though he didn't believe traditionalist theology, christology, or soteriology. From a Texas Monthly article: "Jensen, who joined the church in 2005, did not come to St. Andrew’s in search of protective cover. On the contrary. In an article posted on the church’s Web site, he explained that he came in search of a moral and political community .... He told the congregation that he did not accept the divinity of Jesus, but he did endorse the core principles in Jesus’ teaching and pledged to be a responsible member if they would have him. That was enough for the folk at St. Andrew’s." [0] (That didn't sit well with traditionalist elements in the larger church and led to ecclesiastical trouble. [1]) [0] https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/st-andrews-presbyterian-church/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/st-andrews-presbyteria... [1] https://killingthebuddha.com/mag/confession/the-inquisition/ https://killingthebuddha.com/mag/confession/the-inquisition/

jariel 6y ago

"for what makes people either join or leave a religion." This is a very American kind of statement. In this world, most people don't 'join' religions - they are born into them, and they are usually a part of the social fabric. In the New World we have this notion that Religions are a bunch of competing ideas, that you can join or unjoin this or that. Joining/unjoining kinds of religions are so fundamentally different things that they probably need different words. Catholicism is so different from Evangelicalism that they probably should not be put in the same boat. Catholicism in many ways is more similar to Judaism than Evangelicalism. Anglicans (Church of England), Catholics (Church of Latin world), Presbyterians (Church of Scotland), Methodists (Church of Some Germans) and Judaism ('Church' of Jews) - should almost be thought of in cultural or ethnic terms as much as religious. The Church has always been a cultural and community centre as much as any place of mere belief. The notion that we treat it almost in terms of 'belief' is a constant fallacy which causes us to often miss the point. Finally - religious fervour moved out of the Church in the last century into left/right wing politics. It's just taking a different form now.

jariel 6y ago
Edit: sorry I meant 'Calvinism' as Germanic, not 'Methodist'.