Do religious people inherently crave freedom from religion?

seamus

Random musing for a rainy Saturday afternoon.

Consider the very popular Christian prayer;

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

Reading between the lines, does this not fundamentally represent a form of anti-prayer? Effectively praying for a release from the burden of need to pray?
That is, if someone can learn to accept the things that are out of their control and have self-confidence to change their own life for the better, then prayer is obsolete.

Perhaps this prayer is so popular because it represents a fundamental human struggle - a barrier to happiness is getting yourself caught up in worrying about things outside of your control, and fearing change lest it make things worse.
Could you say that religion is the "gaoler" of this barrier? That is, that religion is the manifestation of these barriers by reinforcing the belief that the universe has a personal "plan" for us (which we should therefore worry about), and that change from the norm is to be avoided and feared?

Not a totally serious thread or a religion-bashing thread, more just armchair babbling. It kind of came to mind looking at a discussion elsewhere online, when it occurred to me how somewhat paradoxical the prayer was as it appears to be a prayer for freedom from prayer.

Hotblack Desiato

Aye but the 'god grant me' bit at the start is the disclaimer. You only get the wisdom and courage and serenity because of the cloud dweller, without god freedom is a delusion, morality is lost and we're on the road to ruin, etc. etc.

smacl

ninja900 wrote: »

Aye but the 'god grant me' bit at the start is the disclaimer. You only get the wisdom and courage and serenity because of the cloud dweller, without god freedom is a delusion, morality is lost and we're on the road to ruin, etc. etc.

Yep, a cynical interpretation might be as follows;

1 - God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

i.e. that God exists, good Christians go to heaven, everyone gets to burn in hell

2 - The courage to change the things I can

i.e. batter the Christian message into the heathens and if that doesn't work burn them as heretics

3 - And wisdom to know the difference

i.e. lose sight of 1, and be prepared to suffer as a heathen as per 2.

So basically, the principal message is tow the line or suffer the consequences.

Bellatori

Robert Heinlein stated in one of his books

"(Religous) Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness. "

It is a statement that religion relieves the adherent of the need to think for themselves. Most theists find the activity of thinking for themselves quite irksome and try and avoid it if possible. So basically that is a no to the OP.

J C

The prayer cited by the OP is basically a prayer to God asking for wisdom and courage.

The wisdom to serenely accept anything I cannot change ... the courage to go and change the the things that I can change for the better ... and the wisdom to know which category each experience in life fits into.

wrote:

Bellatori
It is a statement that religion relieves the adherent of the need to think for themselves. Most theists find the activity of thinking for themselves quite irksome and try and avoid it if possible.

All ideologies (of both the Secular and Religious varieties) relieve the adherent of the need to think for themselves, to a greater or lesser degree.
Approaching everything in life de novo and thinking through every belief we hold is really hard work. Because of this most people avoid the effort in thinking for themselves about most things most of the time - and they generally adopt the ideas and thoughts of others that are aligned with their worldview.

sephir0th

No, I think it's almost the opposite. People realize deep down, especially those who are educated in critical thinking, that it's a load of rubbish. But they decide or choose to continue believing for comfort - belief in the afterlife being the prime one to ease the death of oneself or loved ones, followed by belief so that they can turn to a supreme being in hard times. In a sense, people seem to consciously 'block out' the application of reasoning in this sphere.

Bellatori

J C wrote: »

All ideologies (of both the Secular and Religious varieties) relieve the adherent of the need to think for themselves, to a greater or lesser degree.

To a certain extent I agree with that BUT there is one big difference.. I can view new evidence as a game changer if it contradicts a secular idea or ideal. If, the idea or ideal is 'ordained by God' then there is no way that you can accept change unless you change your religion!

J C

Bellatori wrote: »

To a certain extent I agree with that BUT there is one big difference.. I can view new evidence as a game changer if it contradicts a secular idea or ideal. If, the idea or ideal is 'ordained by God' then there is no way that you can accept change unless you change your religion!

Changing religion isn't all that difficult ... especially when what is percieved as a 'better' worldview comes along.

I think that 'game changer' evidence will have similar effects on Atheists and Theists ... some will accept the implications straight away, some will take time to be convinced and other will never change because they are so wedded to their worldview.

Just like Theists, Atheists have comfort zones too ... and they also don't want them to be upset by some 'inconvenient' idea or evidence that may come along.

ID is certainly a 'game changer' (on a par with the 'game changing' effect of Darwinian Evolution, when it was first propounded by Darwin and Wallace)... and the reaction of Atheists (and indeed many Theists) to the evidence for the idea of ID, broadly follows along the lines I have just outlined, for all 'game changing' ideas.

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

No, I think it's almost the opposite. People realize deep down, especially those who are educated in critical thinking, that it's a load of rubbish. But they decide or choose to continue believing for comfort - belief in the afterlife being the prime one to ease the death of oneself or loved ones, followed by belief so that they can turn to a supreme being in hard times. In a sense, people seem to consciously 'block out' the application of reasoning in this sphere.

Religion has more than its fair share of 'rubbish' allright ... but within all of the man-made ideas to snare the gullible, or to build an 'empire', is a kernel of objectively verifiable truth ... that somewhere at the heart of the universe is a Being or Beings of effectively omniscient knowledge and omnipotent power.

As love, justice and goodness ultimately 'trumps' hatred, injustice and evil ... such a Being or Beings is/are likely to be infinitely loving, infinitely just and infinitely good.

... and that's why so many people deep down believe in a God/Gods and structure their beliefs and lives along religious lines.

Bellatori

J C wrote: »

I think that 'game changer' evidence will have similar effects on Atheists and Theists ...

Not in this universe. If God says it then a theist is stuck with it whether he likes it or not. An atheist can be stupid and ignore facts from perversity but a theist is locked in by his religion. An atheist can, but may not, change. A theist cannot buck the word of God.

J C wrote: »

Just like Theists, Atheists have comfort zones too ... and they also don't want them to be upset by some 'inconvenient' idea or evidence that may come along.

See above...

J C wrote: »

ID is certainly a 'game changer' (on a par with the 'game changing' effect of Darwinian Evolution, when it was first propounded by Darwin and Wallace... and the reaction of Atheists (and indeed many Theists) to the evidence for and the idea of ID, broadly follows along the lines I have just outlined, for all 'game changing' ideas.

This is really quite funny on so many levels. Firstly ID is what creationists retreat to when they finally realise that creationism is a bust and the evidence is so overwhelming that it has become embarrassing for them. The theists and cartoonists had a field day at Darwin's expense but it was the theists that really went to town. Bishop 'Soapy Sam' Wilberforce embarked on a bitter and aggressive rant which ended in debates with the atheist Huxley. One quoted the bible and the other the evidence. Soapy Sam came a distant second... Nice try to tar atheists with the theist brush. When did the RCC finally accept evolution? This century sometime? I would not be surprised. Mind you that would be fast for them.

As for ID... there have been no peer reviewed papers in reputable journals supporting ID. Why? Because it is the proverbial crock of ordure. There are web sites which claim evidence but nothing ever arises that bears scrutiny and whilst there are publications that are essentially self-publicising but no scientifically accepted papers. The Journals will not touch them because they are speculation of the most meager and discredited sort. Some fantasists think that ID is the reputable face of creationism but, frankly, it is no nearer to science than the bible.

J C

Bellatori wrote: »

Not in this universe. If God says it then a theist is stuck with it whether he likes it or not. An atheist can be stupid and ignore facts from perversity but a theist is locked in by his religion. An atheist can, but may not, change. A theist cannot buck the word of God.

A Theist can twist the 'Word of God' in many inventive ways to suit themselves ... and of course, outright rejection is always a possibility.
I don't hold to the idea of any substantive qualitative difference between Atheists and Theists ... they're both subject to the same vices and virtues and I have found remarkable similarities in their reactions to challenges to their worldviews.

Bellatori wrote: »

This is really quite funny on so many levels. Firstly ID is what creationists retreat to when they finally realise that creationism is a bust and the evidence is so overwhelming that it has become embarrassing for them. The theists and cartoonists had a field day at Darwin's expense but it was the theists that really went to town. Bishop 'Soapy Sam' Wilberforce embarked on a bitter and aggressive rant which ended in debates with the atheist Huxley. One quoted the bible and the other the evidence. Soapy Sam came a distant second... Nice try to tar atheists with the theist brush. When did the RCC finally accept evolution? This century sometime? I would not be surprised. Mind you that would be fast for them.

Yes, the general challenge to Darwin, at the time was along emotive lines, probably because the religious authorities of the time had become so arrogant and full of their own importance and invincibility, that they didn't bother to really examine what Darwin was saying and just arrogantly 'knee-jerked' their reactions, when they should have been giving thoughtful responses.

Bellatori wrote: »

As for ID... there have been no peer reviewed papers in reputable journals supporting ID. Why? Because it is the proverbial crock of ordure. There are web sites which claim evidence but nothing ever arises that bears scrutiny and whilst there are publications that are essentially self-publicising but no scientifically accepted papers. The Journals will not touch them because they are speculation of the most meager and discredited sort. Some fantasists think that ID is the reputable face of creationism but, frankly, it is no nearer to science than the bible.

If it's OK with you, I'll not respond as we are moving rapidly into the realm of the 'other thread'.

Getting back to the OP, I think that where religion or indeed irreligion creates heavy burdens (both financial and psychological) for people to carry, it is quite natural for people to inherently crave freedom from such religion or irreligion.
Jesus Christ referred to the oppressive effects of many religious (and indeed irreligious) ideologies when He said, in Mt 11:28-30
28"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
29"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Hotblack Desiato

That's not what this thread is supposed to be about, though, is it?

We often hear the usual criticisms from theists - atheists have no morals, no hope, no meaning in life, etc. etc.

Well the counter to that is visible all around us. People who are moral, hopeful (where justified ) and happy, without god. Accepting of their mortality without being fearful of it.

In fact many, myself included, would go on to say that freedom from the dictates of god and religion makes our lives significantly more moral and more happy.

That is what irks theists. A god is in no way necessary to lead a fulfilled, happy, and moral life. Isn't that idea just a bit too tempting to those who feel bound by the dictates of religion? Tempting enough to be dismissed out of hand or suppressed entirely.