1y ago

Atheists, is there anything religious that sticks with you to this day?

I am Ganesh, an Indian atheist and I don't eat beef. It's not like that I have a religious reason to do that, but after all those years seeing cows as peaceful animals and playing and growing up with them in a village, I doubt if I ever will be able to eat beef. I wasn't raised very religious, I didn't go to temple everyday and read Gita every evening unlike most muslims who are somewhat serious about their religion, my family has this watered down religion (which has it's advantages).

But yeah, not eating beef is a moral issue I deal with. I mean, I don't care that I don't eat beef, but the fact that I eat pork and chicken but not beef seems to me to be weird. So, is there any religious practice that you guys follow to this day?

edit: I like religious music, religious temples (Churches, Gurudwara's, Temples & Mosques in Iran), religious paintings and art sometimes. I know for a fact that the only art you could produce is those days was indeed religious and the greatest artists needed to make something religious to be funded, that we will never know what those artists would have produced in the absence of religion, but yeah, religious art is good nonetheless.

You're viewing a single thread.

303 comments

In a way, I try to live my life so that if some kind of higher power existed, they'd think I am a good person. Not as a gambit to get into heaven or whatever, I don't believe in that. But trying to imagine an objective arbiter of morality makes it easier to take myself out of the equation, which means I'm more likely to treat others as I want to be treated.
- I use biology. Being grateful and kind just has an evolutionary advantage
  
  Approaching kindness or generosity from a biological point of view seems (to me) to lead to The Prisoners' Dilemma. Everyone is better off if we are all generous, but if I can't trust others to be generous, I'm better off being selfish.
  IMHO, religion is an evolutionary adaptation to "solve" this problem. It might have worked in small communities, but not in our global society.
  I'm rambling...
  
  It sounds like you might really enjoy an episode of Radiolab, The Good Show, on this very topic, the evolution of altruism. Indeed, digging into it leads them to the Prisoner's Dilemma. One of the segments covers a competition organized by a computer scientist around an iterative cooperate/defect game. Entrants tried to come up with an algorithm that would maximize the benefit to the 'player' in repeated rounds against the computer. I won't spoil it by revealing which algorithm won, but I'll say it's really fascinating.
  
  It does, but the question is: how can we be grateful and kind in the right way? Being grateful and kind to a robber stealing things from your neighbours house is most likely wrong. Being grateful and kind to a single mother stealing food for her child is most likely right. Trying to see things from an objective point of view is a good way for me to do the right things in the right way.
  
  I think it's really more of a sociology thing. Like, it's pretty well accepted that our natural inclination towards fairness is not from a biological drive, but because we would want to be treated that way. The best way of ensuring that is creating a society where that is the norm. Mankind decided that killing others is wrong because we don't want to get killed ourselves. If we think stealing from others is fine, we have no redress if someone steals from us.
  When I was young, I noticed that the some of the Hammurabic Codes shared a lot in common with Christian teachings. I brought this up to my dad and he said "Yeah, where do you think Hammurabi got the idea?" Now, obviously, he's got his timeline confused, and even as a small child I could do that math and knew the royal edicts pre-dated the 10 commandments and are of a completely non-religious nature. Groups living together need fairness to prosper.
  Evolution, however, tends to lean more towards the strongest surviving. Evolutionarily, we need our genes passed on. Sure, we might manage to procreate before we die, but then we're not around to protect that lineage. Lions are a good example of that problem. If a rival male takes over your pride after killing you, they will also kill all the cubs. Presumably so only their genes are the ones moving on. That is the evolutionary drive. Wolves, however, are much more social creatures. They function as a group that doesn't necessarily need to be related and they make decisions similar to how we would expect our own group behaviors. If one of the pack is hurt, they don't leave it behind to die, they protect it and even leave them behind with the pups to heal when they go out on hunts. But this only extends to their pack. Anything outside the pack does not get that consideration. It's only in groups where being grateful and kind is an advantage.
  Sociology is still a science though! A very good reason to follow those precepts.
  Oh man, and that other poster thought they were rambling... I get real wordy when the Adderall kicks in first thing in the morning.
  
  I don't agree completely. Using lions as a comparison doesn't really work imo since their behavioural patterns differ greatly from ours.
  Gratitude always served as the foundation of our communities. It's what motivates us to look out and care for one another and work as a group. Humans are herd animals so it has an evolutionary advantage to be kind to people. Being excluded from a community (which is the most common response to dicks) usually meant dying.
  For people who didn't suffer that fate, it kind of went something like this: Your parents and other community members take care of you as a child (instinctively). You notice that and feel gratitude, motivating you to return the favor by doing something for other members of your community. They feel grateful as a response and also want to return the favor. Ideally, this loop continues.
  It used to work way better, the Neolithic Revolution really fucked things up but it still works.
  
  You make a lot of assumptions there though, don't you? You're assuming that you would be motivated to "return the favor," but where does that motivation come from? Humans reciprocal acts are learned traits. There's nothing they get in return for that act alone. The return only comes from the potential impact on the community, which is a social function, not biological.
  I used lions as a contrast specifically because they're behavior is different. They are baser creatures who's community does come directly from biology and it's drastically different. I also also gave canines as an example because they are specifically social animals and those behaviors that are similar to ours are derived from the social aspect, not biological since it's community specific, not species.
  Sociology studies how humans behave as groups in relation to each other. It's specifically about the things you're describing. Evolution drives us to pass our genes on. That's it. What you're saying can be just as easily used to trace literally everything humans do back to evolution. The argument could just as easily be made that religion is a result of evolution. Humans are curious because looking for answers gave us a cognitive advantage over competition. That trait leads us to searching for answers. If none are available, we find one. And now we have gods. But religion is organized and requires groups, which brings us back to sociology again.
  
  I'm sorry for misunderstanding the thing with the lions. Thank you for helping me understand it, it makes much more sense now.
  As I said, living in groups is desirable to humans on a very basic level. It's what makes us survive and allows us to pass along our genes which is why staying in groups gives humans an evolutionary advantage.
  I also said that what I described is how it used to work most of the time until the Neolithic Revolution happened. This enormous change also changed the way humans interact and behave. Stuff like greed and jealousy became much more common.
  Despite that it is still baked into human biology that kindness and gratitude are advantageous to us. It explains the positive emotions that emerge when being kind and grateful.
  I am also not doubting what you're saying about sociology because how could I? It's not wrong.
  I think that our opinions don't differ that greatly. The only point I am making is that behaving in a social manner is indeed evolutionary advantageous because it undeniably is.
  species that form groups through social interaction will result in a group of individuals that gain an evolutionary advantage, such as increased protection against predators, access to potential mates, increased foraging efficiency and the access to social information.
  Is what Wikipedia says about group living.
  You're assuming that you would be motivated to "return the favor," but where does that motivation come from?
  It would come from gratitude. Being grateful is simply a tool that emerged to motivate animals, including humans, to live in groups. The behaviour I mentioned earlier can also be seen in chimps and other primates, whose behavioral patterns are pretty similar to ours.
  TL;DR
  Living in groups does have evolutionary advantages thus staying part of one's group is desirable which makes social behavior necessary. However, the Neolithic Revolution messed with human behavior and today's society being much larger than human groups used to be thousands of years ago complicates things further. Gratefulness is simply a tool that emerged in many species, including humans, to further the goal of staying part of the group. It is still baked into human biology although not as much as it used to be.
- Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
  Marcus Aurelius
- I refuse to believe that a being incalculable in power and knowledge, omnipotent, able to see both the past and the future, is somehow, according to what religious people want you to believe, burdened by what we humans experience as emotions or morality.
  
  Why?
  
  I don’t know why your comment was downvoted when I got to it. It’s a perfectly valid question. To claim in incomprehensible being wouldn’t do any given thing is just as objectively baseless as claiming that they would do that thing.
  
  How a being of inordinate power and knowledge even exists would 'feel' or 'think' is indeed incomprehensible to us. It's hubris to believe an entity with the power to create a universe could look down, at a single point in time, at a single place in the universe, and think "I'm really angry that creature masturbated" or "That woman showed her face in public, well she's dead to me now".
  And that's exactly what religion wants us to believe. That we're somehow special in the universe, and there's some grand entity that watches over every single little thing we do throughout the blip of our lives in the eternity of the cosmos. It's honestly fucking bonkers.
  
  I think the concept of such an entity being incomprehensible is baked into the idea of religion, or at least Christianity, which is the only religion that I have any actual experience with.
  How can you be so sure this entity doesn’t look at every individual and each of their actions and make a judgement on them? The concept of omnipotence and omniscience are themselves incomprehensible to us.
  The idea that we don’t know God’s motives is part of why people follow blindly, despite the pain and joy of existence
  
  How a being of inordinate power and knowledge even exists would 'feel' or 'think' is indeed incomprehensible to us.
  How do you know?
  It's hubris to believe an entity with the power to create a universe could look down, at a single point in time, at a single place in the universe, and think "I'm really angry that creature masturbated" or "That woman showed her face in public, well she's dead to me now".
  Sure, but does that mean the same being can't judge A as better than B? That it can't for example see one person pushing over old people, and another person helping them back up, and say "the person helping them back up is morally better than the person pushing them over"?
  
  I think a grand being would definitely possess things like emotions or morality - some mechanisms of wisdom and good judgement. What I've always balked at is the idea that a grand being would have more ego-driven and self-serving human behaviours like jealousy, intolerance of people who are different, revenge, hatred, predudice, etc. Any idea of "God hates [fill in the blank]" has always been laughable to me. I think a grand being would definitely be morally superior to most humans

303 comments