I thought this was interesting and helps explain why many people join other religions after leaving mormonism.

https://youtu.be/CCM2ve15gr8

---

In this dialogue Dr. Michael Shermer talks with philosopher Stephen T. Asma, a Professor of Philosophy and Founding Fellow of the Research Group in Mind, Science, and Culture at Columbia College, Chicago. His new book is Why We Need Religion, in which he argues that, like art, religion has direct access to our emotional lives in ways that science does not. Yes, science can give us emotional feelings of wonder and the sublime—we can feel the sacred depths of nature—but there are many forms of human suffering and vulnerability that are beyond the reach of help from science. Different emotional stresses require different kinds of rescue. Unlike secular authors who praise religion’s ethical and civilizing function, Asma argues that its core value lies in its emotionally therapeutic power. Asma and Shermer also discuss the relationship of science and religion, why people believe in God, atheism vs. agnosticism, the “new atheists”, humanism and the need for social and spiritual community, and other hot topics.

The title is a problem.
Some humans might "need" religion. Not all humans ("we") do.
Being an agnostic, I would have thought the good Dr. of Philosophy would have gotten that right :)

Overall, a decent discussion though. I would personally disagree rather heartily with many of his points, but I'll also freely admit that they ring true for many people.

Probably won't buy the book, though...

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The title is a problem.
> Some humans might "need" religion. Not all humans("we") do.

They discuss that in the video.

Mnemonic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They discuss that in the video.

I know. I found the discussion on that point...unsatisfying. :)

No we don't.

succinct

Our emotional lives are tied to our upbringing, so certain religious notions are as familiar as an old teddy bear. These notions are woven into our culture. You’re exposed them even if you don’t go to church.

It’s as if our cultural conditioning makes us who we are. Not only in our religious lives, but in business and personal lives. We stopped church, but science is the new church. Not all sciences, only the religiously sanctioned ones. Human nature hasn’t changed since Copernicus, when they told him where he could stick his telescope. Could there be a science of the divine? Who knows? The scientists who study it are told where to stick it.

In fact, not much of human nature has changed since we left the trees. We might never change. So much for eternal progression.

Science is not a person or an entity that cares so people can not fill a certain void with just science. Can a scientific method feel love? Not really. It's like a math equation that can not connect with a human in a way on an emotional level. Science does not have feelings or emotions. Can't relate to it is the bottom line. It's cool at the very most but it can not love a person.

Religions can't love a person either. Neither can claimed "god" things for which there is no evidence of any kind.

Only other living things can love a person. Many living things, like dogs, will do so with no hangups, no conditions, no ego -- just feed them and treat them kindly, and they'll love you to death.

Some other humans are like that, too. Sadly, far too many aren't. Finding the ones that are is like hitting the jackpot :)

Yea religion definitely can not love but maybe there is something else out there separate from religion.

To summarize various statements made, without intended irony, by my Mormon wife while trying to understand how I could be a good person without religion:

"The only people who need religion are those who do not trust themselves to make responsible choices."

She concluded that I don't need religion because my parents taught me to make "good" decisions. I don't think she realized how much that ran counter to her efforts to convert me.

Good topic for discussion.

We don't need religion anymore than we need culture.

When humans got into huge groups their gods changed to accommodate their cultural changes. Before their gods were a part of their environments and not personal. They weren't needed either but development like language. We could survive with a less refinement in our languages. Saying we need them is like saying I need tires for a car I created to get me from point A to B. I have legs that can take me there - just a lot slower.

Excellent point, EB.

I'm regularly disappointed when "authorities" describe things that are really "wants" or "conveniences" as "needs."

Me, I think we "need" food, water, breathable air, and survivable temperatures. Anything else is a "want" or "convenience" :)

I like your description of needs.

I would further argue that we need other people us being social creatures but we actually don't need them to survive - just to propagate our species.

Religion was an advancement of human cognition just like technology, art, clean drinking water, hygiene, etc.

We can argue all day about how useful an invention it is. It does have some good mental affects. It has some terrible cognitive ones.

But needing something I believe infers survival not thrival (just made that up.) Some think religion is thrival some survival. I think it has seen its day is an archaic holdover from only so many thousand years of us recording ourselves.

"survival not thrival"

I like it :)

Thanks. It will probably never make it into the lexicon but I like it as well.

ahh...yes... book titles.
My observation? They are created to reach the largest audience's pocketbook, possible. That would be the believers, in my view. That's were the money is.

There are dozens of religions, many make sure their believers, need them and by association, need God while they make sure they need your money, in some manner. And, need you to buy their sacred books.

The smaller percentage of folks, in the non-believer category, tend to be more judicious about what they "need" and needing religion or a deity is not on their list.

I remember being taught in grade school that religion is one of seven cultural variables. I forgot what the other six are except for perhaps a legal system. But that teaching says that every culture in the world addresses each of these seven areas of society in their own way.

I googled and googled. I can't find them. Are they related to inter-cultural communication?

I would love to know what they are.

I tried to find them myself just now and couldn't find them. They once existed in a child's textbook sometime around 1969. Who knows why google doesn't know about them now. Maybe the theory has changed.