Jump to content

Religion is just an attempt to lessen mankind's fear of death?


Ersin

Recommended Posts

After my heart skipped a beat thinking of what lies beneath the world of the Unknown or as many people would call it, Death. A thought came to my mind if religion was based on mankind's fear of death and we introduced it to ourselves to make us less afraid of what's on the other side.

 

Most religions has a Heaven or almost the same which makes it more plausible that religion is based on the fear of death. Heaven being the place where people are sent after they die. Are given immortality and happiness forever. It would make anyone accept death as a blessing, therefore lessening or eliminating the fear of death.

 

So is religion just an attempt of lessen of mankind's fear of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall a similar thread talking about this. Let me see if I can find it.

 

Edit: Found it.

Humans happened upon religion to explain the forces that they didn't understand. Greeks had their gods to explain the different forces of nature, others to sate their fear of death. So now that we can explain most of the forces of nature, there is little need for a higher power. It's a proven fact that the youth of today are less religious as a whole, so do you think that at some point in the future, religion will become so useless that it will be taboo to follow one?

 

Religion helped to explain a lot of things we didn't understand way far back in time, but since we now understand what we didn't know back then and even more, religion just seems to be something people do for the sake of doing it, like a tradition or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on whether you believe in God, religion, and the existence of the afterlife itself, of course.

 

However, for the sake of argument, it is indeed a possibility that mankind simply feared death and thus tried to believed in the existence of a life past death. Personally, though, my thoughts are it's not that mankind simply feared death, but more-so that the idea of being completely eliminated from existence is very incomprehensible itself.

 

Think about it, if you don't believe in the afterlife, what happens when you die? What happens to the thoughts that you are thinking, the last few seconds of your life, leading to your death? Do your thoughts simply stop there? Where do your memories go? Where does your consciousness itself go? Do they just dissapear?

 

It was that incomprehensible thought that lead to mankind's fear of death. Thus, mankind tried to believe that there is indeed life past death, that your thoughts and memories don't simply stop and disappear when you pass away, that you don't simply fade away from existence itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-snip-

Yes, but death is still too unknown to us. Do we just go blank after our last breath of air? It's easy to see that, but it would make you think if it really would be like that since we never have experienced it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but death is still too unknown to us. Do we just go blank after our last breath of air? It's easy to see that, but it would make you think if it really would be like that since we never have experienced it.

There have been people who have flatlined but been resurrected. Maybe we could ask some of those people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been people who have flatlined but been resurrected. Maybe we could ask some of those people.

Many of them have said they saw God/Jesus or they've seen Hell. I remember one man in our country that portrait death as like a dream.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

its extremely reductive to describe such a widespread, multifaceted, massively heterogenous group of schools of thought, philosophies, mythologies and cultures as simply a means to avert fear of death.

 

sure, it's an explanation as to why many religions are appealing. but it's not particularly useful or insightful beyond that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that, Most suicider are atheist.

statistically unlikely given that atheists are a minority in most nations, especially non-Western nations.

 

however:

 

http://www.hsccs.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=13737

 

Religiosity seems to have a protective effect against suicide. Exactly which religion(s), during what ages/developmental periods, and among which ethnicities remain unanswered questions. Many of the studies of the relationship between religion and suicide have been too small, contradictory, or flawed to make overall conclusions. However, research suggests that in the United States, areas with higher percentages of individuals without religious affiliation have correspondingly higher suicide rates. Involvement with a religion may provide a social support system, a direct way to cope with stressors, a sense of purpose and/or hope, and may lead to a stronger belief that suicide is wrong. Religiosity also seems to be related to other demographic factors; religious North Americans are much less likely than nonreligious people to abuse drugs/alcohol and to divorce (which are both associated with increased suicide risk).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or maybe atheism is just a way to feel superior to other people based on how old you think rocks can be.

not sure what you're going on about with rocks but for me and for a few people i know and i suspect for many people here atheism is or was something that gave a feeling of superiority, yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure what you're going on about with rocks but for me and for a few people i know and i suspect for many people here atheism is or was something that gave a feeling of superiority, yes

I assume he's referencing fossils. Or your name, one or the other.

 

Regardless, please Gel don't be that guy. This b8 is bad, so please don't attempt to start a flamewar over something that is inconsequential to the argument at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this is a very hard thing to generalize. For instance, some religions believe that death is a natural cycle and that we should live a good life because our next may not be the same (rebirth/reincarnation). Others believe that you dont actually die but become one with the spiritual world/whatever (cant remember but this is a thing).

 

The teligion i know best is Catholicism. However, where death is concerned is...different. Church teaching is that our bodies die but our souls are lifted to heaven. Therefore, there is no real "death" just us leaving behind our physical bodies. To this extent, i dont think that religion is meant to escape a fear of death.

 

In all honesty, if anything, religion (catholic one at least at times) has been used to lessen man's fear of Hell (though satanists will tell you otherwise). If you have seen my thread on the wager (the one where you thought i was trying to get you to become catholic) then yes religious societies have used religion as a means to scare people into becoming catholic. of course, that isnt right, but it has lessened the fear of many people of HELL, NOT a physical death.

 

The clearedt example i can think of is death row. Often, a catholic priest (or some religious person) may attempt to help someone through there final days. Yes, the movies are sometimes true. And the priests help people overcome their fear of death with promise of eternal life in heaven for truly repenting on their sins. In this sense, YES religion is being used to lessen a man's fear of a PHYSICAL death.

 

In my opinion, the question would be "is religion an escape from damnation after death/is religion a way to lessen man's fear of hell". Or at least add at the end "physical death".

 

At the end of it all, i think religion is meant to give people hope and enlighten their life and share it with others. I dont think it was meant to be a device that helps guilt people into being a part of something or lessen man's fear of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure what you're going on about with rocks but for me and for a few people i know and i suspect for many people here atheism is or was something that gave a feeling of superiority, yes

Just because i'm an atheist doesn't mean I look down on religion. Religion is one of humanities best traits. I just do not believe in God because of reasons, but I will never say that people shouldn't believe in a god above us because it's a good thing to believe in something that gives hope.

 

or maybe atheism is just a way to feel superior to other people based on how old you think rocks can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure what you're going on about with rocks but for me and for a few people i know and i suspect for many people here atheism is or was something that gave a feeling of superiority, yes

Actually I was trying to make my statement as simple as possible:

If you're an atheist, you could look at a rock and say it could be more than a million years old.

If you're not, you could look at a rock and say it's less than 15,000 years old, depending on how long you estimate to be between creation and now.

 

I was also trying to cleverly reference the Scopes Trial, when the line "I'm more interested in the rock of ages than the age of rocks." was said (if I am to believe Discovery Education :P).

(Although I'm not saying I support the Butler Act. 1st Amendment, eh?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I was trying to make my statement as simple as possible:

If you're an atheist, you could look at a rock and say it could be more than a million years old.

If you're not, you could look at a rock and say it's less than 15,000 years old, depending on how long you estimate to be between creation and now.

 

I was also trying to cleverly reference the Scopes Trial, when the line "I'm more interested in the rock of ages than the age of rocks." was said (if I am to believe Discovery Education :P).

(Although I'm not saying I support the Butler Act. 1st Amendment, eh?)

 

Well, not only is this super over-simplified, but also wrong.

1. You're acting under the false idea that a religious person cannot believe in the sciences of evolution, Big Bang, etc. This is utterly false, and just to drive that point home the person who is credited as concieving the idea of the Big Bang was a monk.

 

2. You could say that the rock is ~15,000 years old. I can say that platypus and narwhals mate to create mini planets that grow up to be big strong planets but only if they drink their milk(y way). Neither statement would be accurate (Unless your rock actually happens to be that old, but since you're using rock as a metaphor for the Earth and subsequently the universe, that little issue is null). We have technology that can actually date the Earth, etc. where as you said yourself the creationist is just estimating based on when they think it was. There's no real basis to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I was trying to make my statement as simple as possible:

If you're an atheist, you could look at a rock and say it could be more than a million years old.

If you're not, you could look at a rock and say it's less than 15,000 years old, depending on how long you estimate to be between creation and now.

 

I was also trying to cleverly reference the Scopes Trial, when the line "I'm more interested in the rock of ages than the age of rocks." was said (if I am to believe Discovery Education :P).

(Although I'm not saying I support the Butler Act. 1st Amendment, eh?)

only one of those would be supported by scientific evidence but okay sure i still don't understand what you're implying that this has to do with the relative roles of atheism and religion for people more widely than rock dating, presumably something about creationism but hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read about an article once about Death,

about how docters/scientists think they can cure it, as they think it's only a disease.

I don't know the rest, but it was something with this in it,

sorry for the minor post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most religion tell you how to not go to hell anyways.

It's never really that simple.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_and_Islam - consorting with infidels for mutual gain was commonplace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tordesillas - violated by literally every nation but the two that signed it

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-01-ancient-carthaginians-sacrifice-children.html - to them this was jusitifed but other religions would condemn this

 

Also, it's amusing how many rulers have converted to x religion for political reasons over the years (and surely they'd end up in at least one version of hell if it is real - but of course there is no proof of this), and the fact that some religions, like Shinto, were adapted for other cultures - Shinto is pretty much Buddhism with the peaceful elements replaced with warlike ones.

 

"Religions rise and fall, empires crumble into dust, but the works of science are for all time" - Ulugh Beg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Religions rise and fall, empires crumble into dust, but the works of science are for all time" - Ulugh Beg

shit, even the model of the atom we teach kids at school now probably isn't necessarily 'true' in a real sense. science adapts its theories to fit the information available, this is its greatest strength. science and scientific 'truths' are not permanent, stable, or necessarily 'real', as history has constantly shown.

 

i'm not making any argument that religion should usurp science, or that its truths and teachings are more or less valid, just saying that at least some of what we consider objectively empirically true will probably later be considered in the same light as using bloodletting to treat ailments is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 and the fact that some religions, like Shinto, were adapted for other cultures - Shinto is pretty much Buddhism with the peaceful elements replaced with warlike ones.

 

you're confused. Yes, some practices in modern day Shito come from buddhism, taoism & confucianism, But shinto isn't buddhism.

  • Shinto is an theistic, but animistic, religion, where objects & concepts have a divine spirit.
  • Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that follows the teaching of Gautama Buddha.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're confused. Yes, some practices in modern day Shito come from buddhism, taoism & confucianism, But shinto isn't buddhism.

 

  • Shinto is an theistic, but animistic, religion, where objects & concepts have a divine spirit.
  • Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that follows the teaching of Gautama Buddha.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/history/history_1.shtml

 

"Shintoisms were the only religions in Japan until the arrival of Buddhism in the 6th century CE. From then on Shinto faiths and traditions took on Buddhist elements, and later, Confucian ones. Some Shinto shrines became Buddhist temples, existed within Buddhist temples, or had Buddhist priests in charge. Buddhist temples were built, and Buddhist ideas were explored"

 

"As time went on, the Japanese became more and more accustomed to including both the kami and Buddhist ideas in their spiritual lives. Philosophers put forward the idea that the kami were "transformations of the Buddha manifested in Japan to save all sentient beings".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikk%C5%8D-ikki

 

shit, even the model of the atom we teach kids at school now probably isn't necessarily 'true' in a real sense. science adapts its theories to fit the information available, this is its greatest strength. science and scientific 'truths' are not permanent, stable, or necessarily 'real', as history has constantly shown.

 

i'm not making any argument that religion should usurp science, or that its truths and teachings are more or less valid, just saying that at least some of what we consider objectively empirically true will probably later be considered in the same light as using bloodletting to treat ailments is today.

"works of science" - most modern theories are built upon the works of Scientists such as Darwin, Vesalius, Galileo, Newton, Lister, Hippocrates (Hippocratic Oath + diagnosis) and even Ulugh Beg himself.

 

Whereas most old religions (Roman, Hellenistic, Germanic paganism, Zoroastrianism, Tengrism etc) have been supplanted by organised religions and are no longer relevant - this has also ocassionally happened in certain regions, Orthodoxy was less prevalent in Greece after 1453, and Tengrism died out after the Mongol Hordes converted. In a way, Constantine and Charlemagne were more important to the spread of Christianity than Jesus. Yet today we have logical explanations for the majority of things (e.g comets, earthquakes) that our ancestors feared - they're not acts of God(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...