Why are religions appealing for the individual?
Monday and I were discussing religion’s appeal and we realized that a specific person may be interested in a religion for different reasons than a group. In this post, we discuss why an individual might be drawn to religion.
Monday: In terms of someone's private psychology, I see religion fulfilling the following aims:
A false sense of certainty. People dislike not knowing why they're here, or their place in the universe. They're uncomfortable with moral uncertainties, too. Religion gives answers which feel certain. Hence the appeal.
Removal of anxiety. Religion removes (or lessens) death anxiety by proposing a favorable after life. It also removes (or lessens) the sense of lacking control by forms of false control, such as prayer.
Self-righteousness. Religion feeds into one's desire to be above others, in the moral or intellectual sense. Hence you see divisions of the world into the ignorant/wise, damned/saved, etc.
Meaning. Religion gives people a false sense of purpose for their lives. It places a temporal thing in an eternal context, giving them the feeling that their life is not in vain.
Catering to laziness. Rather than a person confront their anxiety, uncertainty, moral reality with honesty, religion gives them all the answers on a platter. They don't have to work as hard. Similarly with answers about reality. Scientists do arduous work trying to come up with reasonable answers on how the universe works and began. The religious read a book written by cavemen who didn't know what a brain was. Much easier.
Mystical experience / radical self-improvement. This is a positive aspect. One can access states of ecstasy and personal power and resolve through religion. These would be much more difficult to achieve through secular means.
All these things work like placebos, however. I see religion as a crude and conceptual augmented reality "device", of sorts. It allows people to interact with reality in ways that reality doesn't actually self-evidently demonstrate.
Sunday: Quick preface for our readers: I am personally not a believer in any organized religion, but I do have faith that there is a beneficial higher power and/or things will ‘work out’. I am mildly superstitious too.
I read this book about addiction (The Urge by Carl Erik Fisher) and one idea I took away from it was the idea that people that use drugs/whatever are effectively self-treating. I’m not comparing religion to drugs, directly, but I think they can be used for the same underlying reason: for someone to self-medicate some mental/social issue they are dealing with.
If becoming a devout believer in some religion reduces their anxiety of why they are here in this world and everyone’s eventual death, and gives them a community to grow and thrive in—I can absolutely understand why someone would do that. Acceptance and belonging—nothing to ‘scoff at.
I don’t believe that religious or spiritual beliefs are by definition ‘incorrect’ or ‘false’ or that they inherently deny anything with science. They can co-exist without issue if explained through some overarching meta-context (something akin to simulation theory).
And if religion improves someone, it’s medicine in a way. And medicine is something that is ever-changing and sometimes just flat out does not have the answers nor solutions for people in need. Science just explains the world we live in—doesn’t explain how we ought to live in it and cope with it. Religion and/or spiritual beliefs can fill that gap.
But religion also comes with other effects and baggage. Instead of it solely being seen as a personal tool to confront how one engages with reality, it is something with outward facing demands and demands to impact the outside. Converting others, imposing religious beliefs on others, etc. As you said, the creation of divisions.
And short cuts. As you alluded, people can use religion just for the tribe aspect, foregoing what it is, in substance, offering. It’s not about anything specific about it, it’s the broad strokes message and the demand to show tribal affiliation.
Monday: We could, however, draw a parallel between religion and narcotics in the sense that narcotics don’t actually solve most problems, nor does religion. And, further, narcotics cause a lot of additional problems. That something can fill a gap doesn’t mean it should. The deeper question is whether the negative effects are worth the positives.
I’m not entirely sold on the idea that science doesn’t explain how we live in the world and cope with it. I’ve seen articles and read in books scientific accounts of these very things.
But to return to your earlier claims, “I don’t believe that religious or spiritual beliefs are by definition ‘incorrect’ or ‘false’ or that they inherently deny anything with science. They can co-exist without issue” — while it may be possible for them to co-exist from a higher perspective, I don’t see religions making this claim of themselves. In the case of young-earth Creationists, they generally claim that the science is on their side, and they simply disagree with the so-called “establishment.” There are religious flat-earthers, too. One could invoke quantum mechanics, multiple universes, Simulation theory, magic and a host of other ideas to claim that the earth is both flat and round, but this isn’t what flat earthers themselves say.
I would say there’s a flaw in religion in that it is motivated by emotional reasoning, and when emotional reasoning becomes a heuristic, it can and will act in flawed ways in other aspects of life. For example, if someone believes in God because they suffer from depression and believing in God gives them relief, then what happens with other uncomfortable facts? They could get a summons from a court, saying they need to appear on such-and-such a date, but since this court date bothers them, they instead will use emotional reasoning and say, “believing I didn’t actually receive this court summons reduces my anxiety. Therefore I didn’t actually receive it.” They then lose their case for non-appearance. In other words, there’s a potential cost to shutting down rationality. And I suspect it’s too much to ask for most people live such compartmentalized lives that they’ll restrict their emotional reasoning solely to the areas where it might be beneficial.
Saying all of that, there are some systems which technically might qualify as a religion without denying any scientific data. Examples include Advaita Vedanta, Zen or Taoism. I wouldn’t disagree with someone practicing these — within reason — but these types of “religions” aren’t even remotely in the majority. And I don’t think they would be appealing to the majority, if widely known.
Sunday: With quandaries like these, my feeling is to say: everything in moderation. Believing in a higher power to guide you to a better place isn’t as extreme as believing that the Earth is flat. And, looking at it from a utilitarian view, if it’s a net positive for that person, then it is the right choice to make.
With that being said, if someone is illogical/incorrect about something in greater reality, but that belief improves their personal life, and doesn’t impact anyone else—what is wrong with that? Sure, there are negatives to their own view of reality, but if their lives are better…who cares?
But. Religious practices that are highly personal and that don’t require outward impact are few and far between. The individual may benefit, but together with many other individuals, in a group, there can be adverse effects. And good things too.
But the effects of religion on a group and why a group may seek to sustain a religion are for another post. Thanks for reading!
If you are religious, what appeals to you about it, individually? If you aren’t, what doesn’t religion give you?